Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mrs Satpal Kaur

DRT4 Feb 2026OA/1387/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's application for recovery of Rs.21,23,721 plus interest against the defendant. The court confirmed the loan advance and outstanding dues. It issued a recovery certificate and directed the sale of mortgaged land to recover dues.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; Defendant directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 12.03.2026.

State Bank of India versus Mrs Satpal Kaur — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1387/2022 Date of Institution: 07.07.2022 Date of Decision: 04.02.2026

¶4

SBI having its branches all over India and a branch at Village Ablu Kothe Chet Singh, Tehsil & District Bathinda, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

Mrs. Satpal Kaur w/o Sh. Jaswinder Singh, r/o Village Ablu Kothe Sandhuan Wale, Tehsil & District Bathinda, Punjab.

¶7

……….Defendant

¶8

Advocates

¶9

Sh. Jiteshwar Malhi proxy counsel for Sh. D. P. Garg, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶10

Defendant- ex parte vide order dated 21.03.2024 .

¶11

OA for the Recovery of Rs.21,23,721/- with interest @12.60% per annum with half-yearly rests from 07.07.2022.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

SBI has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.21,23,721/- with interest against Mrs. Satpal Kaur (defendant).

¶14

Bank’s case is that on 23.12.2014, it had granted a loan of Rs.14.00 Lacs to defendant in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @12.60% per annum with half-yearly rests. On 19.05.2022, a sum of Rs.21,23,721/- was due from the defendant. The defendant had duly acknowledged his liability towards the debt on 08.11.2017. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶15

¶16

On 08.08.2022, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 21.03.2024, he was proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Manil Kumar, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-8. 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 Rs.14.00 Lacs and on 19.05.2022, a sum of Rs.21,23,721/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.21,23,721/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Twenty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty One Only) with interest @12.60% per annum with half-yearly rests from 07.07.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Party is directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 12.03.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged land and standing crops 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 party. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 04.02.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶17

MANOJ KALRA

State Bank of India v. Mrs Satpal Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mrs Satpal Kaur

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

Uco Bank versus Ms Classic Kitchen Anr. Ors.

Chandan Joshi versus Hdfc Bank

Sri Pallab Paul And Anr. versus Punjab National Bank

Canara Bank versus Mohinder Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Jagir Singh

Indian Bank versus Amarjit Singh