Allowed

State Bank of India v. Satpal Singh

DRT4 May 2026OA/1341/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed SBI's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of ₹23,20,020/- with interest against defendants Satpal Singh and Sukhjit Kaur, who were proceeded ex parte. The court adjudicated the dues and directed issuance of a recovery certificate and sale of mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; recovery certificate issued; liability joint and several; mortgaged properties to be sold.

State Bank of India versus Satpal Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1341/2024 Date of Institution: 10.08.2024 Date of Decision: 04.05.2026

¶4

SBI having its branches all over India and a branch at VPO Sadiq, Distt Faridkot, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Satpal Singh s/o Sh. Karam Singh, r/o village Sadiq, Mukatsar Road, Tehsil & Distt, Faridkot, Punjab.

¶8

Sukhjit Kaur w/o Sh. Satpal Singh, r/o Village Sadiq, Mukatsar Road, Tehsil & Distt, Faridkot, Punjab.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

MS. Pinki proxy counsel for Ms. Dipti Toni, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶12

Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 25.02.2025 .

¶13

OA for the Recovery of ₹23,20,020/- with interest @10.25% per annum with monthly rests from 10.08.2024.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

SBI has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹23,20,020/- with interest against Sh. Satpal Singh (defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 20.03.2015, it had granted Term Loan of ₹20.00 Lacs to the defendants for Housing purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his properties (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @10.25% per annum with monthly rests. On 31.07.2024, a sum of ₹23,20,020/was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶17

On 25.09.2024, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not

¶18

¶19

put in appearance. Vide order dated 25.02.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶20

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Vinod Kumar Lakhanpal, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A- 12. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of ₹20.00 Lacs and on 31.07.2024, a sum of ₹23,20,020/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹23,20,020/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Twenty Thousand Twenty Only) with interest @10.25% per annum with monthly rests from 10.08.2024, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of both the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property(ies) fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 08.06.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property(ies) as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 04.05.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

State Bank of India v. Satpal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Satpal 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

Icici Bank Limited versus Vikas and Anr.

Canara Bank versus Sri.K. H. Pratheesh

Canara Bank versus Navanith

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Lateef Ahmed Bapari

Punjab National Bank versus Mr Gurdhian Singh

State Bank of India versus Balvir Singh