Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Joginder Singh

DRT4 Feb 2026OA/1310/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by State Bank of India against Joginder Singh for recovery of a term loan. The defendant failed to appear. The Tribunal decreed the principal amount plus costs and adjusted interest at 8% p.a. from the filing date.

What did the court decide?

Decree for recovery of Rs.21,78,838.00 with costs and simple interest at 8% p.a. from the filing date; direction to issue Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Joginder Singh — DRT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1310/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 07.11.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 04.02.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under The State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Corporate Centre at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point Mumbai and one of its Local Head Office at Sector 17-A, Chandigarh and one of its Branch at RACC Patiala, District Patiala through its Chief Manager Smt. Madhvi Sharma

¶7

……..Applicant Versus Sh. Joginder Singh S/o Sh. Dalip Singh, R/o Village Urna, P.O. Manakpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala …….Defendant Advocates:

¶8

Sh. Joginder Singh S/o Sh. Dalip Singh, R/o Village Urna, P.O. Manakpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala

¶9

Argued by Sh. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate proxy for Sh. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for the applicant

¶10

Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 09.06.2025

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.21,78,838.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Eight Only). The Original Application has been filed through Smt. Madhvi Sharma, Chief Manager of 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 & 02.05.1987 issued by Executive Committee issued under regulation 76 & 77 of State Bank of India Regulations framed in exercise of powers conferred by SubSection 3 of Section 50 of State Bank of India Act, 1955 with previous sanction of Central Government.

¶13

2 OA/1310/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. JOGINDER SINGH

¶14

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs.19.00 Lacs for purchase of Combine Harvester vide Loan Application dated 26.02.2023, which is Annexure A1 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.19.00 Lacs for purchase of Combine Harvester vide Letter of arrangement dated 04.03.2023, which is Annexures A2 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant hypothecated Combine Harvester Make: Inderpreet Agro Industries, Model: INDER 30, bearing registration no. PB-39L0270, Chassis No. IAI930I08022, and Engine No. DFEM065253, vide hypothecation agreement dated 04.03.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Registration Certificate of Vehicle dated 03.03.2024, which is Annexure A4 to this OA.

¶15

Documents executed : - Legal Notice dated 28.10.2024, along with Postal Receipt which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Statement of account with certificate, which is Annexure A6 to this OA. 5. 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.21,78,838.00 which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notice but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶16

The defendant was served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte on 09.06.2025.

¶17

In support of the OA, affidavit of Smt. Madhvi Sharma, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy 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

¶18

3 OA/1310/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. JOGINDER SINGH

¶19

the Annexures A1 to A6 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facility 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 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.21,78,838.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Eight Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶20

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @9.00%p.a. with 2% penal interest and monthly rests from 06.11.2024 till the realization.

¶21

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.

¶22

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.21,78,838.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Eight 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

¶23

¶24

OA/1310/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. JOGINDER SINGH

¶25

shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated vehicle 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.

¶26

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶27

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this

¶28

Tribunal on 16.02.2026.

¶29

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.

¶30

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶31

Dated: 04.02.2026.

¶32

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶33

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Joginder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Joginder 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. Balwinder Singh and Another

Babita Babbar and Another versus Hdfc Bank and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Gurbax Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Diyal Singh Alias Dial Singh and Others

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Gurjit Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Pritpal Singh