Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Parminder Singh

DRT29 May 2026OA/227/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India under Section 19 of RDB Act against a borrower for recovery of a term loan. The application went ex-parte. The tribunal fixed interest at 8% p.a. and directed issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued; Defendant liable to pay Rs.25,07,350 plus simple interest @8% p.a. from date of filing till realization.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 227/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 04.02.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 29.05.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a Body Corporate, constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and 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 17-A, Chandigarh and Branch Office at State Bank of India, AMCC Rupnagar, Opp. HMT Resort, Bela Road, Rupnagar, Tehsil and Distt. Rupnagar through its Chief Manager Ms. Purvi Khatri.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus Sh. Parminder Singh son of Sh. Jagdeep Singh, resident of village Sarthali, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar.

¶8

.……Defendant

¶9

Advocate:

¶10

Argued by Sh. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate for the applicant

¶11

None for Defendant (already ex parte vide order dated 26.05.2026)

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.25,07,350.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Seven Thousand Three Hundred Fifty only). The Original Application has been filed through Ms. Purvi Khatri, Chief Manage r, of the applicant bank , who is competent to institute the Original Application.

¶14

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of Term Loan of Rs.24.80 Lacs for purchase of Combine Harvester, vide Application dated 21.07.2025, which is Annexure A-1 to this OA .

¶15

¶16

OA/227/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. PARMINDER SINGH

¶17

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.24.80 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 25.07.2025, which is Annexure A-2 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant vide Arrangement Letter dated 29.07.2025, which is Annexure A-3 to this OA. 4. Defendant hypothecated his Combine Harvester bearing Registration No. PB12AK4458, Make SURINDRA AGRO INDUSTRIES, Model No. SURINDRA-930 LEOPARD, Engine No. SJHM116483, Chassis No. SAI930H251986, vide Hypothecation Agreement dated 29.07.2025, which is Annexure A-4 to this OA; Copy of Registration Certificate of Vehicle dated 15.11.2025, which is Annexure A-6 to this OA; Documents executed : Udyam Registration Certificate dated 26.06.2025, which is Annexure A-5 to this OA; Bank Notices dated 29.08.2025 and 31.10.2025, which are Annexure A-7 and A-8 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 16.12.2025, which is Annexure A-9 to this OA; Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act dated 30.12.2025, which is Annexure A-10 to this OA; Statement of Account along with Interest Statement, which is Annexure A-11 to this OA; and Certificates under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act dated 27.01.2026, which are Annexure A-12 and A-13 to this OA.

¶18

The account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account, there was a debit of Rs.25,07,350.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Seven Thousand Three Hundred Fifty only), 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 and no one appeared on behalf of defendant. Hence, he was proceeded ex-parte on 26.05.2026.

¶19

In support of the OA, affidavit of Ms. Purvi Khatri, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, has been filed.

¶20

Heard ex parte arguments and perused record.

¶21

¶22

OA/227/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. PARMINDER SINGH

¶23

It was argued by learned 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 A-1 to A-13 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the Term Loan, 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.25,07,350.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Seven Thousand Three Hundred Fifty 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 in relief clause has claimed interest @12.25% p.a. plus 2.00% p.a. penal interest from 24.01.2026 till the realization. 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 asset, 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.

¶24

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.25,07,350.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Seven Thousand Three Hundred Fifty only), with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00% p.a. in the loan

¶25

¶26

OA/227/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. PARMINDER SINGH

¶27

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 asset 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.

¶28

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 19.06.2026 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: 29.05.2026

¶29

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶30

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Parminder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Parminder 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 Saas Foods

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Mehar Deen

Bank of India versus Sh. Tehal Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Messrs Pilwan Earth Movers and Others

Hdfc Bank Litmited versus Sh. Harbans Singh and Another

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Amar Singh and Others