Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Jagtar Singh

DRT13 Feb 2026OA/1914/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's Original Application for recovery of ₹22,72,494 from the defendant. The tribunal modified the claimed future interest rate to 8% per annum and authorized recovery through hypothecated assets or personal attachment.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹22,72,494 plus interests at 8% per annum from hypothecated assets and personal assets; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jagtar Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1914/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 26.09.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 13.02.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body Corporate Constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955) having its Corporate Office 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, Punjab through its Chief Manager Sh. Sandeep Kumar Bajaj.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus Sh. Jagtar Singh Son of Sh. Pritam Singh, R/o Village Shahpur, PO Bujrak, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, Punjab. ….……Defendant Advocates: Argued by Sh. Rishab Gupta, Advocate proxy for Sh. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for applicant

¶8

Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 25.06.2024

¶9

FINAL ORDER

¶10

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.22,72,494.00 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Seventy Two Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Four Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Sandeep Kumar Bajaj, Chief Manager, o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in the Gazette Notification published in Gazette of India dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 and 02.05.1987 under Regulations No.76 & 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations framed in Exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section 3 of section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

¶11

2 OA/1914/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. JAGTAR SINGH

¶12

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.9.50 Lacs & Agriculture Term Loan of Rs.8.50 Lacs under KGC vide Loan Applications dated 04.06.2014, which are Annexures A2 & A3 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.9.50 Lacs and Agriculture Term Loan of Rs.8.50 Lacs under KGC vide Letters of arrangement dated 09.06.2014, which are Annexures A4 & A5 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶13

Defendant mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land measuring 24K-00M situated at Village Shahpur, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, Punjab vide mortgage deed bearing vasika no. 692 dated 09.06.2014, along with its translation, which are Annexures A8 and A8A to this OA; Mutation sanction letter dated 09.06.2014, along with its translation, which is Annexures A9 and A9A to this OA. Documents executed: Gazette notification dated 20.03.2017, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Hypothecation agreements dated 10.06.2014, which are Annexures A6 and A7 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 30.08.2010, along with postal receipt, which is Annexure A10 to this OA and Statement of accounts with closure enquiry and certificate, which are Annexures A11 & A12 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.22,72,494.00, 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 25.06.2024.

¶14

3 OA/1914/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. JAGTAR SINGH

¶15

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Kumar Bajaj, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, h as been filed.

¶16

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶17

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 A12 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 bank. 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.22,72,494.00 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Seventy Two Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Four Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶18

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed [email protected]%p.a. with half yearly rest in KCC and interest @14.20%p.a. with half yearly rests in KGC, from the 07.08.2022 till realization.

¶19

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 years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the

¶20

4 OA/1914/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. JAGTAR SINGH

¶21

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.22,72,494.00 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Seventy Two Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Four Only) with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%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.

¶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 27.02.2026. 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 . Dated: 13.02.2026. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Jagtar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Jagtar 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

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Vishal Trading and Co. and Another

Axis Bank Limited versus Sh. Pritpal Singh and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Manjit Singh and Another

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Gursharan Singh Rattan Alias Major Gursharan Singh Rattan and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Jaswinder Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Gurjant Singh and Another