Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Gurlal Singh

DRT1 Jan 2026OA/246/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT-III, Chandigarh allowed the applicant's Original Application for recovery of dues amounting to Rs. 29,23,715.00 from the respondent. The Tribunal reduced the interest rate from 11.15% p.a. to 8% p.a. and ordered the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 29,23,715.00 with simple interest at 8% p.a. and issuance of Recovery Certificate.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.246/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 27.10.2021

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 01.01.2026

¶6

State Bank of India (previously known as State Bank of Patiala), a body corporate, constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, having its Corporate Centre at State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai one of its Local Head Office at Sector17-A, Chandigarh and one of its branches offices at Nadampur, Branch at Sangrur (Punjab) through its Branch Manager Sh. Chander Mohan.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus Sh. Gurlal Singh Son of Sh. Apar Singh R/o Village Bimbar, Post office Majhi, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur, Punjab.

¶8

……. Defendant

¶9

Advocates:

¶10

Argued by Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate proxy for Ms. R.K. Grewal, Advocate for the applicant

¶11

Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 17.10.2025

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

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.29,23,715.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Twenty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Fifteen Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Chander Mohan, Branch manager, of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in the terms of Gazette Notification dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 and 27.03.1987 issued by Executive Committee of the Central Board in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Regulation No. 76 & 77 of State Bank of India Regulations made by the RBI in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub section 3 of Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955.

¶14

2 OA/246/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. GURLAL SINGH

¶15

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant had approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs.14.50 Lacs & Term Loan of Rs.10.00 Lacs under KGC vide Loan applications dated 09.02.2016, which are Annexures A1 & A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.14.50 Lacs & Term Loan of Rs.10.00 Lacs under KGC vide Sanction dated 29.02.2016, which are Annexures A3 & A4 to this OA and Letter of arrangement dated 14.03.2016 & 11.03.2016, which are Annexures A5 & A6 to this OA. The terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶16

Defendant mortgaged his immovable property i.e. land measuring 5.82 acres i.e. 27bigha19-biswa-5Biswasian Kham situated at Village Bimbar, Tehsil and District Sangrur, Punjab vide mortgage deed bearing dated 14.03.2016, which is Annexure A11 to this OA. Documents executed: Hypothecation agreements dated 11.03.2016 and 14.03.2016, which are Annexure A7 to this OA; Letter of consent & letter of undertaking, both dated 09.02.2016, which are Annexures A8 & A9 to this OA; Letter of undertaking dated 11.03.2016, which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Statements of accounts, which are Annexures A12 & A13 to this OA; Legal notice dated 04.06.2011, along with its translation, which is Annexure A14 to this OA and Revival letter dated 26.02.2019, which is Annexure A15 to this OA. 5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.29,23,715.00, 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 17.10.2025.

¶17

3 OA/246/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. GURLAL SINGH

¶18

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Chander Mohan, Branch Manager , State Bank of India, has been filed.

¶19

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶20

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 A15 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.29,23,715.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Twenty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Fifteen Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶21

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.15%p.a. with half yearly rests from 07.10.2021 till the realization.

¶22

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 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 both 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.

¶23

4 OA/246/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. GURLAL SINGH

¶24

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.29,23,715.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Twenty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Fifteen 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/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.

¶25

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 14.01.2026. 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: 01.01.2026

¶26

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Gurlal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Gurlal 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

State Bank of India versus Sh. Sandeep Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Harnek Singh

Canara Bank versus Smt. Amandeep Kaur and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Narinder Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Narinder Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Nirmal Singh and Others