Allowed

State Bank of India v. Shri Devi Dayal

DRT27 Aug 2026OA/1186/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed SBI's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of ₹21,71,326/- with interest against a defendant who failed to appear. The Tribunal directed sale of mortgaged property and issued a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹21,71,326/- with interest allowed; sale of mortgaged land and personal property directed; Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Shri Devi Dayal — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1186 of 2024 Date of Institution: 05.08.2024 Date of Decision: 27.08.2026

¶4

SBI having its branches all over India and a branch at Kalyan Sukha and District Bathinda, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

Sh. Devi Dayal son of Sh Mangat Ram resident of House no. 40, Village Kalyan Malka, and District Bathinda, Punjab.

¶7

……….Defendant

¶8

Advocates

¶9

Ms. Seerat Sharma proxy counsel for Sh. Pankaj Beri, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendant - ex parte .

¶10

OA for the Recovery of ₹21,71,326/- with interest @11.90% per annum with half-yearly rests from 05.08.2024.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

SBI (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹21,71,326/- with interest against Sh. Devi Dayal (defendant).

¶13

Bank’s case is that on 22.10.2014, it had granted a loan of ₹14.60Lacs to defendant in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @11.90% per annum with half-yearly rests. On 19.07.2024, a sum of ₹21,71,326/- was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶14

¶15

3. On 28.08.2024, summons was sent to the defendant by registered
post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in
appearance. Vide order dated 03.03.2025, he proceeded was_ex parte_.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the
affidavit of Mr. Vikas Pilare, Authorised Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-7. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of ₹14.60Lacs and on 19.07.2024, a sum of ₹21,71,326/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of
₹21,71,326/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy One Thousand Three
Hundred Twenty Six Only) with interest @11.90% per annum with half- yearly rests from 05.08.2024, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9. Party is directed to appear before Recovery Officer on
28.09.2026.
10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to
the Recovery Officer as well as the party.
Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 27.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Shri Devi Dayal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Shri Devi Dayal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Shilpy

Bank of India versus Sh. Hardev Singh

Bank of India versus Amarjit Kaur

Santosh Kumari versus Central Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mokksh

Ms Tamanna Enterprises versus Indian Bank