Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Narinder Singh

DRT1 Jan 2026OA/1247/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's application for recovery under Section 19 of RDB Act, 1993. The court declared the defendant liable to pay the outstanding principal along with modified simple interest and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs. 25,64,089.00 plus costs and simple interest @08.00% p.a.; direction to issue Recovery Certificate and permit enforcement via sale of hypothecated assets or attachment.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Narinder Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1247/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 10.10.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 01.01.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body Corporate constituted under the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and having its Corporate Centre, at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and having branches all over India and Abroad and one of its branches amongst other places at SBI RACC, Nabha District Patiala, Punjab and one of its specialized branches known as Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB) at SCO-15 First Floor, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh through its Authorized Signatory Sh. Varun Kumar, Chief Manager.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus Sh. Narinder Singh, Son of Sh. Jarnail Singh, R/o Village Chaswal, Sub Tehsil Bhadson, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, Punjab.

¶8

….……Defendant

¶9

Advocates:

¶10

Argued by Sh. Omkar Gupta, Advocate for applicant

¶11

Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 29.05.2025

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

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. 25,64,089.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Sixty Four Thousand Eighty Nine Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Varun Kumar, Chief Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms Gazette Notification dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972, 27.03.1987 and 29.10.2005 issued by Executive Committee of the Central Board in exercise of power conferred on it under Regulations No.76 & 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations made by RBI in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section 3 of section 50 of the State Bank

¶14

2 OA/1247/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. NARINDER SINGH

¶15

of India Act, 1955, with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

¶16

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of Term Loan of Rs.24.00 Lacs for purchase of Combine Harvester vide Loan Application dated 27.02.2023, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.24.00 Lacs vide Letter of agreement dated 04.03.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant hypothecated Combine Harvester Make: Gurdeep Agro Industries, Model: New Gurdeep 927, bearing Registration No. PB11DC7739, Chassis No. GAI927L2251 & Engine No. H623020507 vide hypothecation agreement dated 04.03.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA. Tax Invoice dated 07.03.2023, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Registration Certificate, which is Annexure A6 to this OA. Documents executed: Letter of standing instruction both dated 04.03.2023, which is Annexures A4 to this OA; Legal notice dated 08.12.2023, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Notice dated 24.07.2024, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Letter dated 30.07.2024, which is Annexure A9 to this OA and Statement of account with certificate under Banker’s Book Evidence Act, which is Annexure A10 to this OA.

¶18

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. 25,64,089.00, 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.

¶19

The defendant was served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte vide order dated 29.05.2025.

¶20

3 OA/1247/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. NARINDER SINGH

¶21

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Varun Kumar Chief Manager , State Bank of India, has been filed.

¶22

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶23

It was argued by learned counsel through 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. 25,64,089.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Sixty Four Thousand Eighty Nine Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶24

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @8.90%p.a. with monthly rest from 06.10.2024.

¶25

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

¶26

4 OA/1247/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. NARINDER SINGH

¶27

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the

¶28

defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs. 25,64,089.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Sixty Four Thousand Eighty Nine 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 Combine Harvester 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.

¶29

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this

¶32

Tribunal on 14.01.2026.

¶33

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.

¶34

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶35

Dated: 01.01.2026.

¶36

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶37

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Narinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Narinder 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

State Bank of India versus Sh. Sandeep Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Harnek Singh

Canara Bank versus Smt. Amandeep Kaur and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Narinder Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Nirmal Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Gurlal Singh