Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Pritpal Singh

DRT4 Feb 2026OA/16/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's application for recovery against a defaulting borrower. The Court fixed uniform simple interest at 8% per annum across both loan accounts and authorized recovery from hypothecated or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Liability declared for Rs. 27,23,154.00 with 8% p.a. interest; Recovery Certificate issued.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.16/2023

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION:23.12.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 04.02.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, having its Corporate Office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and having Branches all over India and one of its Branch at Kamalpur, District Patiala through its Branch Manager Sh. Ravindra Anand.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

Sh. Pritpal Singh S/o Sh. Hakam Singh R/o. VPO Karhali, Tehsil & District Patiala.

¶9

….……Defendant

¶10

Advocates:

¶11

Argued by Ms. Lovedeep Kaur, Advocate proxy for Ms. Puja Sharma, Advocate for Applicant

¶12

Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 31.07.2024

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

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.27,23,154.00 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Twenty Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty Four Only)The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Ravindra Anand, Branch Manager o f the applicant who is competent to institute the Original Application vide in terms of Gazette Notification dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972, 02.05.1987 and 17.05.2001 issued by the Executive Committee of the Central Board in exercise of powers conferred by Sub section 3 of section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. State Bank of India Regulations dated 27.03.1987, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶15

2 OA/16/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. PRITHPAL SINGH

¶16

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant of KCC Limit of Rs.19.75 Lacs and Term Loan of Rs.3.00 Lacs under KGC vide Loan application along with translation dated 04.12.2015, which are Annexures A2 & A2T, A3 & A3T to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs19.75 Lacs and Term Loan of Rs.3.00 Lacs under KGC vide Letters of Arrangement dated 02.01.2016, which are Annexures A5 & A5A to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land Measuring 40Karnal-00Marla situated at Village Karhali, Tehsil & District Patiala, Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4(1) of Punjab Agricultural Credit Operation and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1978 dated 24.12.2015 which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Letter to the sub Registrar for creation of charge, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; CERSAI Registration, which is Annexure A12 to this OA. Documents executed: ID Proof of defendant in FILE 3, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Hypothecation Agreement dated 02.01.2016, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Consent Letter dated 02.01.2016 which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Revival Letter dated 16.12.2018 and 28.07.2021 which are Annexures A10 & A11 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 14.07.2022, along its translation, which are Annexures A13 & A13T to this OA; Statement of Accounts, which are Annexures A14 to A15 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.27,23,154.00 which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendant was served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte vide order dated 31.07.2024.

¶17

3 OA/16/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. PRITHPAL SINGH

¶18

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Ravindra Anand, Branch Manager, State Bank of India has been filed.

¶19

Heard ex- parte arguments and perused record.

¶20

It was argued by learned proxy counsel 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 A15 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the applicant. The defendant failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendant were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.27,23,154.00 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Twenty Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty Four Only) with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶21

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @10.95% p.a. in KCC and @11.20% p.a. in KGC with 2% penal interest and half yearly rests from 11.10.2022 till the realization.

¶22

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 hypothecated assets/mortgaged properties, undertaking of the defendant, quantum of loans 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 @8.00%p.a. in both 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.

¶23

4 OA/16/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. PRITHPAL SINGH

¶24

I n the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs. 27,23,154.00 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Twenty Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty Four Only) with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in both 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.

¶25

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶26

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶27

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 16.02.2026. 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.

¶28

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 04.02.2026.

¶29

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

State Bank of India v. Sh. Pritpal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Pritpal 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. Balwinder Singh and Another

Babita Babbar and Another versus Hdfc Bank and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Gurbax Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Diyal Singh Alias Dial Singh and Others

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Gurjit Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Joginder Singh