Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Bikram Singh

DRT24 Apr 2026OA/1576/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application by State Bank of India was allowed, declaring the defendant liable to repay Rs. 30,51,380.00 with interest @ 8% p.a. The court exercised discretion to grant simple interest at 8% instead of the claimed rate due to market conditions.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 30,51,380.00 with costs and simple interest at 8% p.a. from the date of filing the application till realization.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1576/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 05.08.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 24.04.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Central Office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai carrying on its business of banking in India and abroad and having one of its Local Head Office at Sector 17-A, Chandigarh and Branch Office at State Bank of India, Main Branch, Shakti Nagar, Dera Bassi, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Chief Manager Sh. B.S. Uppal.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Bikram Singh S/o Sh. Ram Singh @ Ram Ishwar, R/o Village Jeoli, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali

¶10

……..Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Ms. Sakshi Chauhan, Advocate proxy for Sh. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate for the applicant

¶13

Sh. Raj Kumar Rana, Advocate for defendant

¶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.30,51,380.00 (Rupees Thirty Lacs Fifty One Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. B.S. Uppal, Chief Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms of Gazette Notification dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 & 27.03.1987 issued by Executive Committee of the Central Board in exercise of powers conferred on it under Regulation No.76 and 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations, framed in exercise of power

¶16

2 OA/1576/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. BIKRAM SINGH

¶17

conferred by sub section 3 of section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 with previous sanction of Central Government.

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.14.00 Lacs vide Applicationcum-sanction letter dated 21.02.2014, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.14.00 Lacs vide Letter of Arrangement dated 13.03.2014, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶20

Defendant mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land measuring 15Bighe-00Biswa, situated at Village Jeoli, Hadbast no. 184, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Punjab vide mortgage deed bearing vasika no. 11109 dated 07.03.2014, along with its translation, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Lien Marking Letter dated 07.03.2014, along with its translation, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Affidavit dated 24.02.2014, which is Annexure A6 , to this OA. Documents executed: Hypothecation Agreement dated 13.03.2014 which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Notice dated 05.02.2022, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 13.06.2022, along with postal receipt, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Balance Confirmation/Revival Letters dated 29.10.2016 and 23.09.2019, which are Annexures A9 and A10 to this OA; Statement of Account with Interest Statement and Certificate, which are Annexures A11 to A13 to this OA.

¶21

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.30,51,380.00, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notice but he did not repay the outstanding amount,

¶22

3 OA/1576/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. BIKRAM SINGH

¶23

therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶24

The defendant was served summons to appear before this Tribunal. Sh. Raj Kumar Rana, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendant on 23.05.2025 and filed his Power of Attorney. However, no WS was filed by defendant, therefore his opportunity to file WS was closed and his defense was struck off vide order dated 04.04.2026. Thereafter, the matter was posted for arguments. On 13.04.2026, learned counsel for defendant filed an IA No.693/2026 on behalf of defendant for recalling the order dated 04.04.2026. This IA was dismissed vide order dated 17.04.2026.

¶25

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. B.S. Uppal, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, has been filed.

¶26

Heard arguments and perused record.

¶27

It was argued by learned proxy counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶28

The learned counsel for defendant did not advance any arguments on the OA.

¶29

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A13 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was 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, loan account was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30,51,380.00 (Rupees Thirty Lacs Fifty One Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Only), along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶30

4 OA/1576/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. BIKRAM SINGH

¶31

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant has claimed interest @10.25%p.a. for with 2% penal interest and half yearly rests from 26.07.2022 till the realization.

¶32

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 simple interest @8.00%p.a. 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.

¶33

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.30,51,380.00 (Rupees Thirty Lacs Fifty One Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Only), 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 mortgaged property/hypothecated assets 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.

¶34

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶36

¶37

OA/1576/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. BIKRAM SINGH

¶38

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 15.05.2026.

¶39

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.

¶40

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 24.04.2026

¶41

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶42

Presiding Officer,

¶43

DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Bikram Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Bikram 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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S G.N. Construction and Others

Central Bank of India versus M/S Veer Print Pack and Another

Canara Bank versus M/S Hanumat Processors and Others

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Madhav International and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Labh Singh and Others

Canara Bank versus M/S Krn Power Tech and Others