Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh and Another

DRT29 Jan 2026OA/1428/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 21,18,881.00 from the defaulting borrowers. The court ordered the payment of principal, costs, and simple interest at 8% per annum, permitting recovery through sale of assets or personal attachment.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of liability to pay Rs. 21,18,881.00 with costs and simple interest at 8% p.a.; direction for issuance of Recovery Certificate.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1428/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 29.09.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 29.01.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under State Bank of India Act, 1955 and having its Corporate Centre At Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point Mumbai and having Branches all over India formerly, State Bank of Patiala, Now Known SBI (Transferee Bank of State Bank of Patiala, by way of amalgamation, the business including the Assets and Liabilities of the State Bank of Patiala Vide Notification Dated 22.02.2017) and one of its Branches amongst other places at Branch Raikot, District Ludhiana, Punjab through its Authorized Officer Sh. Sunil Kumar Singla, Chief Manager.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/S Harbans Lal Manohar Lal proprietor ship firm through its proprietor Sh. Manohar Lal Shop No. 198/12, Committee Bazar, Raikot, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana-141109

¶10

Sh. Manohar Lal S/o Sh. Harbans Lal, proprietor of M/S Harbans Lal Manohar Lal proprietorship firm, R/o H. No. 618, Ward no. 11, Ram Gali Balmiki Mohala, Raikot, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana-141109

¶11

Sh. Gulshan Kumar S/o Sh. Harbans Lal, H. No. 618, Ward No. 11, Ram Gali Balmiki Mohala, Raikot, Tehsil Raikot, District Ludhiana-141109

¶12

….……Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Omkar Gupta, Advocate for the applicant Defendants already ex-parte vide order dated 14.11.2025.

¶15

¶16

OA NO.1428/2025 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. MESSARS HARBANS LAL MANOHAR LAL AND OTHERS

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.21,18,881.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty One Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Sunil Kumar Singla, Chief Manager, of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms of Notification dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972, 27.03.1987 & 29.10.2005 issued by Executive Committee of the Central Board in exercise of power conferred on it under regulation 76 & 77 of SBI General Regulations made by RBI in exercise of power conferred by Sub-Section 3 of Section 50 of SBI Act with previous sanction of Central Government.

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no.1 through its proprietor approached the applicant for grant of Cash Credit Limit of Rs.6.00 Lacs vide Loan application dated 09.06.2011, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶20

The applicant sanctioned the Cash Credit Limit of Rs.6.00 Lacs vide Letter of Sanction dated 10.06.2011, which is Annexure A2 to this OA to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶21

Smt. Krishnawati (since deceased) mortgaged her immovable properties i.e. Shop constructed on land measuring 238.50 Sq. ft. (26.50 Sq. Yards) bearing MC Shop No.198/12 (2296), Committee Bazar, Raikot, District Ludhiana, Punjab vide through equitable mortgage of Sale Deed bearing vasika no. 5001 dated 29.01.1997, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Letter dated 13.06.2009 and 11.06.2011 regarding confirmation of mortgage, which are Annexures A4 and A5 to this OA.

¶22

¶23

OA NO.1428/2025 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. MESSARS HARBANS LAL MANOHAR LAL AND OTHERS

¶24

Since, Smt. Krishnawati (since deceased), mortgagor was not impleaded as party to this OA, a clarification was sought from the applicant vide order dated 19.11.2025. In compliance to order dated 19.11.2025, an affidavit of Sh. Sunil Kumar Singla, Chief Manager was filed on 05.12.2025 vide diary no. 20031 in which it is deposed that Smt. Krishnawati expired and defendant nos. 2 and 3 are her only legal heirs. Since, both her legal heirs i.e. defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 3 are impleaded as defendants, therefore Late Smt. Krishnawati is not impleaded as party in this OA.

¶25

Documents executed: Notification dated 22.02.2017, which is Annexure AA to this OA; Agreement of hypothecation and guarantee dated 10.10.2011, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Balance Confirmatory cum acknowledgement of security letter dated 10.06.2011 & 31.05.2014,which are Annexures A7 and A8 to this OA; Revival letter dated 03.05.2017, 22.04.2020 & 04.04.2023, which are Annexures A9 to A11 to this OA; Letter dated 04.07.2025, which is Annexure A12 to this OA; Notice dated 16.08.2025, which is Annexure A13 to this OA and Statement of account, which is Annexure A14 to this OA.

¶26

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account there was a debit of Rs.21,18,881.00, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶27

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 14.11.2025.

¶28

¶29

OA NO.1428/2025 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. MESSARS HARBANS LAL MANOHAR LAL AND OTHERS

¶30

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Sunil Kumar Singla, Chief Manager, State bank of India has been filed.

¶31

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶32

It was argued by learned counsel through video conferencing 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 A14 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which were granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.21,18,881.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty One Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶33

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @12.75%p.a. with 2% penal interest and monthly rests from 14.08.2025 till the realization.

¶34

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 defendants, 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

¶35

¶36

OA NO.1428/2025 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. MESSARS HARBANS LAL MANOHAR LAL AND OTHERS

¶37

@8.00%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.

¶38

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.21,18,881.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty One Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated assets/mortgaged properties of defendants 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 defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶39

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of . 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 11.02.2026. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants 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: 29.01.2026. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Sh.Jatinder Singh

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Davinder Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Satish Kumar and Others

State Bank of India versus Messrs Ks Toor Commission Agent and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Ranveer Singh and Others

Bank of Baroda versus Late Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma through His Legal Heirs and Others