Allowed

State Bank of India v. Rajender

DRT12 Feb 2026OA/116/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India against a borrower for recovery of a KCC loan. The court acknowledged a settlement payment but decreed the full claim with interest, setting conditions for satisfaction.

What did the court decide?

OA decreed for Rs. 28,79,192 plus interest; consented that if settlement amount is paid, decree treated as satisfied; otherwise, liberty to file for recovery certificate.

State Bank of India versus Rajender — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

“ORIGINALAPPLICATION” No. 116 OF 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR

¶3

PRESENT- SHRI VIMAL GUPTA

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

O.A. NO. 116 OF 2024

¶6

DATE OF DELIVERY OF ORDER 12.02.2026

¶7

STATE BANK OF INDIA , a Body Corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), having its Corporate Office at State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021; one of its branch/office State Bank of India, SARB, 3rd Floor, Matrix Mall, Sector 4, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.), through its Chief Manager Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta.

¶8

…..Applicant Bank…..

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1. Rajender S/o Mr. Birbal Ram Bishnoi R/o Chak 5-NP, Dabla, Raisinghnagar, Distt. Sriganganagar (Raj) – 335039.

¶11

……Defendants…..

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant Bank Sh. Ajay Swami Counsel for the Defendant

¶13

Sh. Sanjay Rahar

¶14

Order signed and uploaded on 16.02.2026.

OA No. 116 OF 2024

JUDGMENT

This Original Application was filed by the applicant bank on 23.10.2023 for recovery of outstanding amount of Rs. 28,79,192/- from the Defendant.

¶19

As per the pleadings, Defendant No. 1 had approached the applicant bank for availing KCC Loan facility. After due consideration, KCC Loan facility was sanctioned by the Applicant Bank in favour of Defendant in the year 2016 vide letter of arrangement dated 20.07.2016 which was subsequently renewed/reduced/modified/enhanced from time to time.

¶20

It is submitted that the Defendant in order to secure the loan facility sanctioned by the Bank, had created charge under Sec. 6(1) of the RODA Act in the agriculture land, which is in the name of Defendant, in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶21

It is submitted that Defendant had executed the Revival letter on 01.07.2019 and 25.06.2022, whereby they had revived the earlier executed loan documents.

¶22

Defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and therefore, their loan account was classified as NPA on 31.03.2023. Applicant Bank has therefore, filed this original application for recovery of its dues against the Defendants.

¶23

It is submitted that the applicant Bank issued a Notice dated 19.10.2023 to Defendant and raised the demand to deposit the entire outstanding amount in the loan accounts, but the Defendant inspite of notice have failed to deposit the dues.

¶24

Order signed and uploaded on 16.02.2026.

¶25

¶26

OA No. 116 OF 2024

¶27

Summons were issued to the Defendants on 22.02.2024. Service was effected on 15.04.2024, and the Defendant appeared before the Registrar on 18.10.2024. The reply was declined for taking on record as it was not filed within the statutory period of 30 days.

¶28

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶29

9. Counsel for the defendant appears and submits that they have entered into settlement and Rs. 6.00 Lac has been paid. Counsel for the bank submits that they have already placed the settlement letter on record which is confirmed by the defendant counsel that it is the same settlement which he has received.

¶30

As stated supra, the Applicant Bank filed the evidence affidavit of Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta coupled with the recitals in the documents, viz Exhibit A/1 to A/12 marked on behalf of the applicant bank, clinches the claim of the applicant bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly & severally liable to pay to the applicant bank the claim made in O.A. with future interest and costs.

¶31

In the result, this O.A. No. 116 OF 2024 is allowed declaring that:-

¶32

a) In view of the settlement arrived between the parties, this OA stands decreed for the OA amount of Rs. 28,79,192/- with interest and if settlement amount is paid decree will be treated as satisfied. In case of failure of settlement, the bank will be at liberty to file

¶33

Order signed and uploaded on 16.02.2026.

¶34

¶35

OA No. 116 OF 2024

¶36

MA for issuance of recovery certificate for full Original Application amount along with contractual rate of interest.

¶37

b) Accordingly, this OA stands disposed of. File be consigned to record, as per rules.

¶38

12.A copy of the Judgment be given or sent by registered post to each of the parties free.

¶39

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶40

Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. 12.02.2026 .

¶41

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶42

Order signed and uploaded on 16.02.2026.

State Bank of India v. Rajender

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Rajender

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Tulsi Ram Menaria

Rajasthan Gramin Bank versus Mariyam

Suneel Kumar Sharma versus Bajaj Housing Finance Limited

Prem Prakash Sharma versus Motilal Oswal Home Finance Limited

Ms Jagdamba Electric through its proprietor Ashok Kumar versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Smriti Prakash Gupta versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited