Allowed

State Bank of India v. Smt. Meenakshi Chadha Alias Minakshi Chadha

DRT21 Jan 2026OA/1281/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application under the RD and B Act for recovery of Rs. 34 lakhs plus interest. It granted uniform simple interest at 7.45% p.a. across all loan accounts instead of varied rates requested by the bank.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 34,01,532 with simple interest at 7.45% p.a., enforcement via sale of mortgaged property and attachment of personal assets.

State Bank of India versus Smt. Meenakshi Chadha Alias Minakshi Chadha — Insurance | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1281/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 02.07.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 21.01.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Corporate Office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its Local Head Office at Sector 17A, Chandigarh, having branches all over India and one of its branches situated at RACPC, 1^st Floor, Fountain Chowk, Civil Lines, Ludhiana through Sh. Rajive Chopra, Chief Manager of the Applicant.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Smt. Meenakshi Chadha alias Minakshi Chadha W/o Sh. Anil Chadha R/o House No. B-34/10417, St No.. 4, Ranjodh Park, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.

¶10

Alternate Address: B-34-5244/1, Ward No. 3, Ragannath Pura, Chander Nagar, Near Bengoli Mandir, Ludhiana.

¶11

………. Defendant

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Ms. Lovedeep Kaur, Advocate proxy for Ms. Puja Sharma, Advocate for the applicant

¶14

Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 03.07.2024

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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.34,01,532.00 (Rupees Thirty Four Lac One Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Two Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rajive Chopra, Chief Manager o f the applicant who is competent to institute the Original Application vide State Bank of India Regulations dated 27.03.1987, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

2 OA/1281/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. MEENAKSHI CHADHA ALIAS MINAKSHI CHADHA

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for grant of Home Loan of Rs.25.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 28.08.2017. Thereafter, the defendant approached the applicant for grant of additional loan of Rs.1.50 Lacs for payment Life Insurance Premium vide Request Letter dated 29.10.2017 which is Annexure A10 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant approached the applicant for grant of Home Top-Up Loan of Rs.10.00 Lacs vide Loan application, which is Annexure A12 to this OA. Thereafter, the defendant approached the applicant for Re-structuring of Home Loan and Top-Up Loan vide Application dated 29.06.2021, which is Annexure A20 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned Home Loan of Rs.25.00 Lacs vide Arrangement Letter dated 14.09.2017, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned additional loan of Rs.1.50 Lacs for payment of Life Insurance Premium vide Sanction Letter dated 29.10.2017 which is Annexure A11 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned Home Top-Up Loan of Rs.5.10 Lacs vide Arrangement Letter dated 06.11.2018 which is Annexure A13 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned the Re-structuring of Home Loan and Top-Up Loan vide Arrangement Letter dated 29.06.2021, which is Annexure A21 to this OA.

¶20

Defendant had mortgaged her immovable property i.e. House No. B-34-10417/1904/1-B, measuring 100 sq. yards situated at Village Haibowal Kalan, Hadbast No. 102, Abadi Ranjodh Park, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, Punjab through equitable mortgage of sale deed bearing vasika no. 7249 dated 20.09.2017, which are Annexures A7 and A7T to this OA. Agreement to mortgage and Deed of guarantee, both dated 14.09.2017, which are Annexures A5 and A6 to this OA; Confirmation letter regarding mortgage dated 04.10.2017, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Affidavit dated 30.10.2018 which is

¶21

¶22

OA/1281/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. MEENAKSHI CHADHA ALIAS MINAKSHI CHADHA

¶23

Annexure A16 to this OA; Confirmation Letter dated 06.11.2018, regarding deposit of title deeds, which is Annexure A17 to this OA; Memorandum of Deposit of title deeds, which is Annexure A18 to this OA; CERSAI registration dated 21.10.2017 which is Annexure A19 to this OA.

¶24

Documents executed :- Id Proof of defendant which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Memorandum of Loan Agreement for home loan dated 14.09.2017, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Consent letter dated 14.09.2017, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Loan Agreement Home Top Up Loan, Consent Letter dated 06.11.2018, which are Annexures A14 and A15 to this OA; Legal Notices dated 01.12.2020, 13.04.2022, which are Annexures A22 and A23 to this OA; Revival Letter dated 31.05.2022 which is Annexure A24 to this OA; Statement of Accounts which are Annexures A25 to A27 to this OA; Demand Notice dated 11.04.2022 under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 which is Annexure A28 to this OA.

¶25

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.34,01,532.00, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but she 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 notice to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and she was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 03.07.2024. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rajive Chopra, Chief Manager, State Bank of India h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. 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

¶26

¶27

OA/1281/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. MEENAKSHI CHADHA ALIAS MINAKSHI CHADHA

¶28

Annexures A1 to A28 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to her and for that she 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, 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 Rs. 34,01,532.00 (Rupees Thirty Four Lac One Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Two Only) along with interest from the defendant from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶29

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest in @7.45%pa in Home Loan and @7.70%pa in Home Top-Up Loan and SBI RIN Suraksha Loan with penal interest @2% p.a. and monthly rests from 15.06.2022 till the realization.

¶30

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, 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 @07.45%p.a. in all 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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.34,01,532.00 (Rupees Thirty Four Lac One Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Two Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @07.45%p.a. in all the loan accounts from the

¶31

¶32

OA/1281/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. MEENAKSHI CHADHA ALIAS MINAKSHI CHADHA

¶33

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 mortgaged property 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.

¶34

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 03.02.2026. 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.

¶37

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶38

Dated: 21.01.2026.

¶39

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶40

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Smt. Meenakshi Chadha Alias Minakshi Chadha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Smt. Meenakshi Chadha Alias Minakshi Chadha

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

The Khalsa Nirbhai Transport Company Pvt. Ltd. versus Catholic Syrian Bank Limited and Others

State Bank of India versus M/S Satpal Prem Kumar and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Harminder Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Bharpur Singh Alias Bharpoor Singh

State Bank of India versus M/S New Punia Trading Company and Another

State Bank of India versus Smt. Kusum Lata