Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Kuldeep Singh

DRT5 Jan 2026OA/2007/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's application for recovery of an outstanding loan of Rs.30,07,081.00 against a defaulting borrower. The Tribunal directed the striking off of the defence due to absence and modified the claimed interest rate to 8% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.30,07,081.00 with interest @8% p.a.; Issuance of Recovery Certificate; Direction to appear before Recovery Officer.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.2007/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 23.11.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 05.01.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, erstwhile known as a State Bank of Patiala, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act 1955 (23 of 1955) having its Corporate Centre at Madam Cama Road, Mumbai and having one of its Local Head Office at Sector 17, Chandigarh including one such branch at Moonak, District Sangrur, Punjab, through its Chief Manager Sh. Tarsem Chand.

¶7

……. Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Son of Sh. Banarsi Das, R/o Village Rampura Gujjran, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur, Punjab.

¶10

….……Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Rishab Gupta, Advocate proxy for Sh. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for applicant

¶13

None for Defendant

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

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.30,07,081.00 (Rupees Thirty Lacs Seven Thousand Eighty One Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Tarsem Chand, Chief Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms Gazette Notification published in Gazette of India dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 and 02.05.1987 issued under Regulations No.76 & 77 of State Bank of India 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.

¶16

2 OA/2007/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. KULDEEP SINGH

¶17

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant had approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 28.02.2015, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide Letter of arrangement dated 05.03.2015, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶18

Defendant had mortgaged his immovable property i.e. land measuring 40K-00M situated at Village Rampura Gujran, Hadbast no. 86, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur, Punjab as per jamabandi for the year 2011-2012 vide Declaration u/s 4(1) dated 16.03.2015, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Jamabandi for the year 2020-21 along with its translation, which are Annexure A6 and A6A to this OA.

¶19

Documents executed: Gazette notification dated 20.03.2017, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Hypothecation agreement dated 05.03.2015, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Legal notice dated 15.06.2021 along with postal receipt, which is Annexure A7 to this OA and Statement of account along with account closure enquiry report which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶20

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.30,07,081.00, which is recoverable and the defendant were 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.

¶21

The defendant was served notices to appear before this Tribunal. Ms. Priya Yogi, Advocate proxy for Sh. Diljit Singh, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendant on 27.05.2024 and filed Power of Attorney on behalf of defendant. Since, WS was not filed by defendant, opportunity to file WS by defendant was closed and his defense was struck off on 09.12.2024.

¶22

3 OA/2007/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. KULDEEP SINGH

¶23

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Tarsem Chand, Chief Manager , State Bank of India, has been filed.

¶24

Heard arguments and perused record. No one appeared on behalf of defendant for arguments.

¶25

It was argued by learned proxy counsel for applicant 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 A8 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.30,07,081.00 (Rupees Thirty Lacs Seven Thousand Eighty One Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶26

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 from 28.10.2022.

¶27

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in

¶28

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 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 uniform simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till

¶29

4 OA/2007/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. KULDEEP SINGH

¶30

realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶31

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.30,07,081.00 (Rupees Thirty Lacs Seven Thousand Eighty One 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 hypothecated/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 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.

¶32

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 15.01.2026. 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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 05.01.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Kuldeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Kuldeep 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

M/S Romax Steels Pvt. Ltd. and Another versus Bank of Maharashtra

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Ranjit Singh and Others

Punjab Sweet and Fast Food and Another versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Sh. Nihal Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Aasa Singh and Another

Capital Small Finance Bank Limited versus Late Sh. Varinder Singh through His Legal Heirs and Another