Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Santokh Singh

DRT20 Jan 2026OA/1496/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a principal amount of Rs. 25,62,113 against a defendant. The Tribunal reduced claimed interest rates and directed recovery from mortgaged assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 25,62,113 plus costs and uniform simple interest at 8% p.a. till realization. Issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Santokh Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1496/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 20.07.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 20.01.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Corporate Centre at State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and having one of its Local Head Office at Sector 17, Chandigarh, including one such Branch at Samana (ADB), District Patiala through its Chief Manager Sh. Sandeep Kumar Bajaj.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Santokh Singh s/o Sh. Kehar Singh R/o H.No.44, Basti Gobind Nagar Samana, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala.

¶10

…….Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for the applicant (through VC)

¶13

Defendants already ex-parte vide order dated 23.07.2024

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

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.25,62,113.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Sixty Two Thousand One Hundred Thirteen Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Sandeep Kumar Bajaj, 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 and 02.05.1987 under Regulation no. 76 read with 77 of State Bank of India General Regulation framed in exercise of powers conferred by Sub Section 3 of Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 with previous sanction of the Central Government.

¶16

2 OA/1496/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. SANTOKH SINGH

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of KCC limit of Rs.11.75 Lacs, Agriculture Term Loan of Rs.5.60 Lacs and Term Loan of Rs.1.00 Lac vide loan applications dated 24.11.2013, which are Annexures A2 to A4 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned KCC limit of Rs.11.75 Lacs, Agriculture Term Loan of Rs.5.60 Lacs and Term Loan of Rs.1.00 Lac vide letters of arrangement dated 27.11.2013, which are Annexures A5 to A7 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land measuring 16K-0M situated at Village Samana, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, Punjab vide mortgage deed bearing wasika no. 2178 dated 27.11.2013, along with its translation, which are Annexure A11 and A11A to this OA and mutation section dated 27.11.2013, which are Annexure A12 and A12A to this OA. Documents executed: Gazette Notification dated 20.03.2017, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Hypothecation Agreements dated 28.11.2013, which are Annexures A8 and A9 to this OA; Hypothecation Agreement (Debt Swap) dated 02.12.2013 which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Legal notice dated 30.08.2018, along with postal receipt which is Annexure A13 to this OA; Statement of accounts with certificate, which are Annexures A14 to A16 to this OA. 5. 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.25,62,113.00 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.

¶18

3 OA/1496/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. SANTOKH SINGH

¶19

The defendant was served notice to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte vide order dated 23.07.2024. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Kumar Bajaj, State Bank of India, has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. 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 A16 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities 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 loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.25,62,113.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Sixty Two Thousand One Hundred Thirteen Only) along with interest from the defendant from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts. 10. In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.75% p.a. plus 2% penal interest with half yearly rests in KCC and interest @14.20% p.a. plus 2% penal with half yearly rests in Agriculture Term Loan and Debt Swap Loan from 14.07.2022 till the realization. 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 loans and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester

¶20

4 OA/1496/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. SANTOKH SINGH

¶21

years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8.00%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.

¶22

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.25,62,113.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Sixty Two Thousand One Hundred Thirteen Only) with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in all the loan accounts 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 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.

¶23

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 02.02.2026. 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.

¶24

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal.

¶25

Dated: 20.01.2026.

¶26

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Santokh Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Santokh 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. Rajinder Singh

State Bank of India versus M/S Poonam International and Another

State Bank of India versus M/S Adil Bakery and Another

State Bank of India versus M/S Bhole Nath Trading Co. and Others

Canara Bank versus Messrs Sampanna Creations and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Mela Ram and Others