Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Mandeep Singh

DRT25 May 2026OA/2005/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India under Section 19 RDB Act, 1993 for recovery of Rs. 27,29,330 from a defaulting borrower. The court issued a Recovery Certificate and granted simple interest at 8% p.a. pending execution under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Order for realization of Rs. 27,29,330 plus 08% p.a. interest from sale of mortgaged/other assets.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.2005/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 16.11.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 25.05.2026

¶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 carrying on its Business of Banking in India and abroad and having its Local Head Office at Sector 17A, Chandigarh and Branch Office at State Bank of India, VPO Swaddi Kalan, Samrala, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, Punjab through its Branch Manager, Ms. Meenakshi Sharma

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Mandeep Singh, S/o Sh. Baldev Singh, R/o Village Birmi, PO Malakpur Bet, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, Punjab

¶10

….……Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Ms. Sakshi Chauhan, Advocate proxy for Sh. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate for applicant None for defendant (already ex-parte vide order dated 21.05.2026)

¶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. 27,29,330.00 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Twenty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Only). The Original Application has been filed through Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Branch Manager o f the applicant who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms of Gazette Notification dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.10972 and 27.03.1987 issued by Executive Committee of the Central Board in exercise of powers conferred on it under Regulation nos. 76 and 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations framed in exercise of power conferred by sub-section 3 of section 50 of State Bank of India Act, 1955 with previous sanction of Central Government.

¶15

2 OA/2005/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. MANDEEP SINGH

¶16

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of Term Loan of Rs. 20.00 Lacs vide Application cum Sanction Letter dated 15.09.2015, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

The applicant sanctioned Term Loan of Rs. 20.00 Lacs vide Letter of Arrangement dated 24.12.2025, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶18

Defendant mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land measuring 21K 03M situated at Revenue Estate Patti Multan, SubTehsil Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana, Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4 (1) of the Punjab Agricultural Credit Miscellaneous Provisions Banks Act, 1978, Letter to Sub Registrar and Letter to Halqa Patwari dated 24.12.2015 along with their translation, which are Annexure A4 to A6 to this OA.

¶19

Defendant hypothecated his crops on agricultural land vide Hypothecation Agreement dated 24.12.2015, which is Annexure A3 to this OA. Documents executed: Affidavit dated 04.12.2015, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Legal Notices dated 28.10.2020 and 01.08.2022, which are Annexure A8 and A9 to this OA; Revival Letters dated 19.01.2016, 16.07.2018 and 10.06.2021, which are Annexure A10 to A12 to this OA and Statement of Account with interest statement and certificate, which are Annexure A13 to A15 to this OA. 5. 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. 27,29,330.00, 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 summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.05.2026.

¶20

3 OA/2005/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. MANDEEP SINGH

¶21

In support of the OA, affidavit of Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Branch Manager, State Bank of India has been filed.

¶22

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.

¶23

From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A15 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, account of the defendant was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 27,29,330.00 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Twenty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount. 10. In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant has claimed interest @11.15%p.a. plus @2% penal interest from 09.11.2022 till realization.

¶24

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 property, 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 @08.00% p.a. in 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.

¶25

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.27,29,330.00 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Twenty Nine Thousand

¶26

¶27

OA/2005/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. MANDEEP SINGH

¶28

Three Hundred Thirty Only) with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00% 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 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.

¶29

Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 16.06.2026.

¶32

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.

¶33

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 25.05.2026

¶34

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶35

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Mandeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Mandeep 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

Union Bank of India versus Messrs Honey Enterprises

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/s Geomovers Infra Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Honey Singh

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/s Ajmer Fuelogic Pvt. Ltd.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Karam Singh

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Kartar Singh