Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Sardar Singh Alias Sardara Singh

DRT27 Jan 2026OA/1260/2023

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 Rs 21.22 lacs plus interest. The tribunal adjusted the claimed interest rate to 8% per annum pending realisation and directed issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs 21,22,936 plus interest at 8% p.a. directed; Recovery Certificate issued; Enforcement via hypothecated or personal assets permitted.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Sardar Singh Alias… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1260/2023

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 06.11.2023

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 27.01.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate, constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, and having Central Office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its Local Head Office at Sector 17-A, Chandigarh having branches all over the India and one of its branch situated at Balbehra, District Patiala, Punjab through its Branch Manager Sh. Sandeep Kumar.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Sardar Singh@ Sardara Singh S/o Sh. Kabal Singh, R/o Village Landheri Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

¶10

…….Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Ms. Neha Arora, Advocate proxy for Ms. Puja Sharma, Advocate for Applicant

¶13

Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 27.05.2025

¶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.21,22,936.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Twenty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Six Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Branch Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms of Gazette Notification dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972, 27.03.1987 and 17.05.2001 issued by Executive Committee of the Central Board in exercise of powers conferred by the Sub-Section 3 of Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. State Bank of India Regulations dated 27.03.1987, is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶16

2 OA NO. 1260/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. SARDAR SINGH @ SARDARA SINGH

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs.10.00 Lacs and Agriculture Term Loan of Rs. 8.00 Lacs for vide Loan Applications dated 05.01.2015, along with their translation, which are Annexures A2, A-2T, A3 and A3T to this OA.

¶18

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.10.00 Lacs and Agriculture Term Loan of Rs. 8.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letters, dated 19.02.2015, which are Annexures A4 to A5 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant had mortgaged his immovable properties i.e. Land measuring 65Kanals-4Marlas, situated at Village Landheri, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, Haryana vide Mortgage Deed bearing vasika No.4521 dated 11.02.2015 along with English Translation, which are Annexure A8 & 8T to this OA.

¶19

Documents executed : Hypothecation Agreements dated 19.02.2015 which are Annexures A6 to A7 to this OA; Consent Letter dated 19.02.2015 which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 15.11.2022 which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 08.09.2023 which is Annexure A11 to this OA; Statement of Accounts which are Annexures 12 to A13 to this OA.

¶20

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.21,22,936.00, 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. 6. 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 27.05.2025. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Branch Manager, State Bank of India has been filed.

¶21

3 OA NO. 1260/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. SARDAR SINGH @ SARDARA SINGH

¶22

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶23

It was argued by learned proxy 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 A13 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were 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 loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendant were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.21,22,936.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Twenty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Six 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 pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.75%p.a.in KCC and @14.60% p.a. in KGC, with 2% penal interest and half yearly rests in both accounts, from 19.07.2023 till the realization.

¶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 loans 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 both the loan accounts 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 NO. 1260/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. SARDAR SINGH @ SARDARA SINGH

¶27

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.21,22,936.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Twenty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Six Only) with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts 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.

¶28

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 06.02.2026. 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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 27.01.2026. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Sardar Singh Alias Sardara Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Sardar Singh Alias Sardara 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

Union Bank of India versus M/S Aha International and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Hardeep Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Sukhdev Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Parkash Singh

Union Bank of India versus Smt Ranjit Kaur and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Joginder Singh and Others