Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Design Point and Another

DRT20 May 2026OA/180/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's original application for recovery of Rs. 32,13,536.00 from the respondents jointly and severally, adjusting the claimed future interest rate to a uniform 8% p.a. and ordered the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 32,13,536.00 with costs and simple interest @08.00% p.a. till realization; parties directed to appear before the Recovery Officer.

State Bank of India versus M/S Design Point and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 180/2023

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 30.08.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 20.05.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a Body Corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Corporate Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its Branch Offices amongst other places at SBI, Sainik School, Kapurthala, Punjab through its Authorized Officer, Ms. Babita Chalana, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sainik School Kapurthala, Punjab

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/S Design Point, near Rani Sahib Mandir Amritsar Road, Kapurthala, Punjab- 144601, through its Proprietor, Ms. Rupali

¶10

Ms. Rupali, Proprietor M/S Design Point, R/o House no. B- II/70A, Sheranwala Mohalla, Kapurthala, Punjab

¶11

…Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Kaveesh, Advocate proxy for Sh. S.K. Dhir, Advocate for applicant

¶14

None for defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 18.05.2026)

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 32,13,536.00 (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Six Only). The Original Application has been filed through Ms. Babita Chalana, Branch Manager of the applicant , who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Notification, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for grant of CC Limit of Rs. 10.00 Lacs and Term Loan of Rss. 19.68 Lacs vide Loan Application Form dated 19.11.2019, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶18

2 OA/180/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. M/S DESIGN POINT AND ANOTHER

¶19

Thereafter, defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 again approached the applicant for grant of FITL of Rs. 31,228.00. 3. The applicant sanctioned CC Limit of Rs. 5.00 Lacs and Term Loan of Rs. 19.68 Lacs vide Letter of Arrangement dated 06.12.2019, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned FITL of Rs. 31,228.00. 4. Defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 hypothecated their stock and printer machine etc. vide Loan cum Hypothecation dated 06.12.2019, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. Documents executed: Insurance policy dated 28.09.2021, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 19.05.2021 and 24.06.2021, which is Annexure A6 to this OA and Demand Notice dated 11.05.2022 along with its publication, which is Annexure A7 to this OA and Statement of Accounts with certificates, which are Annexures A8 to A10 to this OA.

¶20

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts, there was a debit of Rs. 32,13,536.00, 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. 6. The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal, but no one appeared on behalf of the defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 18.05.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Ms. Babita Chalana, Branch Manager , State Bank of India has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. 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.

¶21

From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A10 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities, which were granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant

¶22

3 OA/180/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. M/S DESIGN POINT AND ANOTHER

¶23

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, the 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. 32,13,536.00 (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Six Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶24

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in Legal Notice has claimed interest @14.75%p.a. in CC Limit Account and @12.9% p.a. in Term Loan Account with monthly rests from 09.08.2022 till the realization.

¶25

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, undertaking of the defendants, 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 simple uniform interest @08.00% 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.

¶26

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.32,13,536.00 (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Six Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00% 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 of the 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

¶27

¶28

OA/180/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. M/S DESIGN POINT AND ANOTHER

¶29

assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶30

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 11.06.2026.

¶33

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.

¶34

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶35

Dated: 20.05.2026

¶36

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶37

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. M/S Design Point and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Design Point 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

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Pargat Singh

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Max Solutions

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Gursharan Singh

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Kuldeep Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Beant Singh and Another

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Ms Neeraj Goyal and Company and Others