Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Jarnail Singh

DRT10 Feb 2026OA/1244/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the applicant's Original Application filed under Section 19 RD(B) Act. The court declared the respondent liable to pay the outstanding sum with interest @08% p.a. and ordered the issuance of a Recovery Certificate, permitting enforcement via sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; respondent liable to pay Rs. 37,65,305.00 plus costs and simple interest @08% p.a.; enforcement permitted via sale of properties or attachment of assets.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jarnail Singh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1244/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 16.10.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 10.02.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate, constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Central Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its Local Head Office at Sector-17A, Chandigarh and one of its Branch at SARB, SCO 15, First Floor, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh-160019 through its Chief Manager Sh. Dilbagh Singh Reddu.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Jarnail Singh S/o of Sh. Sahib Singh, R/o VPO Shergarh, Tehsil Patran, District, Patiala, Punjab-147105.

¶10

….……Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Devender Rattan, Advocate for the applicant

¶13

Defendant already ex parte vide order dated 25.04.2025

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 37,65,305.00 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Sixty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Five Only).The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Dilbag Singh Reddu, Chief Manager o f the applicant who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms of Gazette Notification published in Gazette of India dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 and 02.05.1987 issued under Regulation no.76 & 77 of State Bank of India Regulations framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section 3 of Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

¶16

2 OA 1244/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. JARNAIL SINGH

¶17

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.24.99 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 24.09.2014, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶18

The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.24.99 Lacs vide Letter of Arrangement dated 04.11.2014, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶19

Defendant mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land measuring 40Kanal-00Marla situated at Village Shergarh, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala, Punjab vide declaration dated 31.10.2014 u/s 4(1) of Punjab Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1978, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Letter for creation of charge and CERSAI report dated 31.10.2014, which is Annexure A6 to this OA.

¶20

Documents executed: Hypothecation agreement, Undertaking, both dated 04.11.2014, which are Annexures A3 and A4 to this OA; Balance confirmation letter dated 10.03.2017, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Revival letters dated 25.02.2020 and 06.02.2023, which are Annexure A8(Colly) to this OA; Legal recall notice dated 18.06.2024, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Statement of account, which is Annexure A10 to this OA.

¶21

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.37,65,305.00, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶22

The defendant was served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte on 25.04.2025.

¶23

3 OA 1244/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. JARNAIL SINGH

¶24

In support of the OA, affidavit of through Sh. Dilbag Singh Reddu, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, h as been filed.

¶25

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶26

It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A10 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendant failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendant was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.37,65,305.00 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Sixty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Five Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶27

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed [email protected]%p.a with 2% penal interest and half yearly rests from 16.10.2024 till the realization.

¶28

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property/hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendant, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till

¶29

4 OA 1244/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. JARNAIL SINGH

¶30

realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶31

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.37,65,305.00 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Sixty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Five Only) with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties of the defendant in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendant. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶32

Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 24.02.2026. 15. Copy of this order be given Dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendant through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶33

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 10.02.2026.

¶34

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Jarnail Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Jarnail Singh

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

Axis Bank Limited versus Sh. Gurmukh Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhwinder Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Gurbachan Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhdeep Singh and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Kamaal Singh

State Bank of India versus Smt. Nanni Devi and Another