Allowed

State Bank of India v. Baljeet Singh @ Jeetu and Another

DRT17 Feb 2026OA/297/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Drt allowed the applicants original application for recovery of loan dues of Rs. 24,40,980 from the defendants jointly and severally, awarding uniform interest at 8% p.a. and directed issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of recovery certificate; declaration of liability to pay Rs. 24,40,980 with interest at 8% p.a.

State Bank of India versus Baljeet Singh @ Jeetu and Another — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.297/2023

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 28.02.2023

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 17.02.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, (23 of 1955) having its Corporate Centre 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 Kup Kalan, District Malerkotla through its Branch Manager Sh. Deepak Kumar.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Baljeet Singh @ Jeetu S/o of Sh. Mal Singh, R/o H.no 239-A, Village Kup Kalan, Tehsil and District Malerkotla.

¶10

Sh. Lakhwinder Singh S/o of Sh. Baljeet Singh @ Jeetu, S/o of Sh. Mal Singh R/o H.no 239-A, Village Kup Kalan, Tehsil and District Malerkotla.

¶11

………Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

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

¶14

Defendants already ex-parte vide order dated 06.05.2024

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.24,40,980.00 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Forty Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Deepak Kumar, Branch Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in term of Gazette Notification dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972, 02.05.1987 under regulation no. 76 and 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations framed in exercise of powers conferred by

¶17

2 OA NO.297/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. BALJEET SINGH @ JEETU AND ANOTHER

¶18

sub-section 3 of section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, with the previous sanction of the Central Government .

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for grant KCC Limit of Rs.13.00 Lacs and Agriculture Term Loan of Rs.2.00 Lacs under KGC vide Loan Applications dated 14.12.2015, along with translations, which are Annexures A2 and A3 to this OA. Defendant no.2 as guarantor. 3. The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.13.00 Lacs and Agriculture Term Loan of Rs.2.00 Lacs under KGC vide Letter of Arrangements dated 30.12.2015, which are Annexures A4 and A5 to this OA and the terms and conditions are accepted by defendants. 4. Defendant no. 1 mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land measuring 15Bigha-0Biswas situated at Village Kup, Tehsil Ahemadgarh, District Malerkotla, Punjab, vide Declaration dated 28.12.2015 under Section 4(1) of Punjab Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1978, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Jamabandi for the year 2016-17, along with its translation, which are Annexures A10 and A10T to this OA. Documents executed : Gazette Notification dated 20.03.2017, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Hypothecation Agreements dated 30.12.2015, which are Annexure A6 and A7 to this OA; Deed of guarantee dated 30.12.2015, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 07.02.2023, along with postal receipt, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; Statement of Account along with Closure Enquiry Report, which are Annexures A12 and A13 to this OA.

¶20

The loan accounts became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.24,40,980.00 which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notice but defendants did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶21

3 OA NO.297/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. BALJEET SINGH @ JEETU AND ANOTHER

¶22

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06.05.2024.

¶23

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

¶24

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶25

It was argued by proxy counsel for applicant 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 A13 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the applicant. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.24,40,980.00 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Forty Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶26

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @10.95%p.a. in KCC Limit and @11.85%p.a. in KGC with half yearly rests from 01.02.2023 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 mortgaged property/hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendants, 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

¶27

¶28

OA NO.297/2023 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. BALJEET SINGH @ JEETU AND ANOTHER

¶29

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.

¶30

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.24,40,980.00 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Forty Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%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 defendants 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 defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶31

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 05.03.2026. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶32

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 17.02.2026.

¶33

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

State Bank of India v. Baljeet Singh @ Jeetu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Baljeet Singh @ Jeetu and Another

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

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Harpreet Singh and Others

Bank of Baroda versus M/S G. K. Engineering and Innovative and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Amandeep Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Bawa Ram

State Bank of India versus M/S Satkar Industries and Another

State Bank of India versus M/S King of Spices and Another