Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Shaheena Bano

DRT29 Aug 2026OA/1687/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed State Bank of India's application for recovery of outstanding dues of approximately Rs. 34.56 Lakrs with interest against the respondent, who failed to appear despite summons, and ordered a recovery certificate to be issued.

What did the court decide?

Direction to issue Recovery Certificate for Rs. 34,55,851/- with interest allowing recovery from hypothecated assets and personal property of the respondent.

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Shaheena Bano — Consumer Protection | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1687/2023 Date of Institution: 19.09.2023 Date of Decision: 29.08.2026

¶4

SBI having its branches all over India and a branch at Rehama, Tehsil & District Baramulla (J & K).

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

Mrs. Shaheena Bano D/o Mohd. Abdullah Bhatt, R/o Rehama Near Hospital Rafiabad, Baramulla (J&K).

¶7

……….Defendant

¶8

Advocates

¶9

Sh. Banni Thomas, Counsel for the applicant bank along with Sh. Inderpreet Singh, Manager Law of the applicant bank. Defendant- ex parte vide order dated 15.12.2025 .

¶10

OA for the Recovery of ₹34,55,851/- with interest from 19.09.2023.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

SBI has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹34,55,851/- with interest against Mrs. Shaheena Bano (defendant). 2. Bank’s case is that on 26.04.2019, it had granted KC.C. Limit of ₹1.00Lacs under Krishak Uthan Yojna to the defendant for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Again on 27.05.2019, at the request of the defendant, bank granted a Term Loan of ₹30.00 Lacs to the defendant for Vehicle purpose. To secure the Term Loan, Defendant had hypothecated her vehicle bearing Registration No. JK-05H-5419 (fully detailed in para No. 5.9 of the application). The K.C.C. Limit was chargeable to interest @12.10% per annum with half-yearly rests and the Term/Vehicle Loan was chargeable to interest @13.15% per annum with

¶13

¶14

monthly rests. Defendant had duly acknowledged her liability towards the debt on 26.05.2022. On 06.09.2023, a sum of ₹34,55,851/- was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶15

On 12.10.2023, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 15.12.2025, she was proceeded ex parte .

¶16

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Basharat Bashir Dar, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-14.

¶17

I have perused the evidence on the record. Inderpreet Singh, Manager Law is present along with the original documents which have been perused by me. The same have been returned to him after perusal. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced total loan of ₹31.00 Lacs and on 06.09.2023, a sum of ₹34,55,851/- was due.

¶18

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹34,55,851/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Fifty Five Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty One Only) - ₹1,02,904/- in K.C.C. Limit with interest @12.15% p.a. with half-yearly rests and ₹33,52,947/- in Vehicle Loan with interest @12.40% p.a. with monthly rests from 19.09.2023, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated vehicle and assets fully detailed in para No.3A and 5.9 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant.

¶19

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶20

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶21

¶22

Party is directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 30.09.2026.

¶23

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: 29.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Shaheena Bano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Shaheena Bano

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 Muhammed Sameer

Punjab National Bank versus M S Bishaka International and Ors.

State Bank of India versus M/S Sidhi Vinayak Enterprises

M/S. Dhuria Verka Point versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Anju Trading Co.

Punjab National Bank versus Gurnam Singh