Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Maninder Singh Banaphal

DRT23 Apr 2026OA/32/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dr. H. S. Bedi, Member on behalf of the Chief Justice, held that the applicant proved its case through documentary evidence as the defendant appeared ex-parte. The application was allowed, declaring the defendant liable to pay the outstanding debt with simple interest at 8% per annum.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is declared entitled to recover Rs. 23,96,859.00 plus simple interest at 8% p.a. from the defendant via sale of assets.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.32/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 05.01.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 23.04.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate, constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and having Central Office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and having one of its Local Head Office at Sector 17, Chandigarh having branches at different places and one of its AMCC Branch at Nabha, District Patiala, Punjab through its Chief Manager, Sh. Jatinder Kumar Salaria.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

1. Sh. Maninder Singh Banaphal S/o Sh. Hari Singh, R/o Village Gobindpura, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, Punjab-147202

¶9

……..Defendant

¶10

Advocates:

¶11

Argued by Sh. Seerat Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh. Aseem Kataria, Advocate for applicant

¶12

None for defendant (Already ex-parte vide order dated 10.03.2026)

¶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.23,96,859.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Nine Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Jatinder Kumar Salaria, Chief Manager of applicant who is competent to institute the Original Application vide in terms of the Gazette Notification published in the Gazette of India dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 and 02.05.1987 under Regulation no. 76 read with 77 of State Bank of India General Regulation framed in exercise of power conferred by sub-section 3 of section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, with the previous

¶15

2 OA NO.32/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. MANINDER SINGH BANAPHAL

¶16

sanction of the Central Government vide Gazette Notification dated 20.03.2017, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of Term Loan for purchase of Combine Harvester of Rs.25.00 Lacs vide Application form for Agricultural Credit dated 06.02.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶18

The applicant sanctioned Term Loan for purchase of combine harvester of Rs.25.00 Lacs vide Arrangement Letter dated 20.02.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions duly accepted by the defendant.

¶19

Defendant hypothecated his moveable asset i.e., namely Preet Combine Harvester-Model 987DI, bearing Registration no. PB34E0484, Chassis no. PTC0220247704, Engine no. PDHM120804 vide Tax Invoice dated 21.02.2024, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Provisional Registration Certificate was filed on 17.04.2026 vide Dairy no. 6795. Documents executed: Hypothecation Agreement dated 20.02.2024, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Insurance copy dated 27.09.2025 which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 04.12.2025 along with postal receipt, which is Annexure 7 to this OA; Statement of Account along with calculation sheet and certificate, which is Annexure A8 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.23,96,859.00, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notice 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 10.03.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Jatinder Kumar Salaria, Chief Manager, State Bank of India has been filed.

¶20

3 OA NO.32/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. MANINDER SINGH BANAPHAL

¶21

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶22

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.

¶23

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, loan account was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.23,96,859.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Nine Only), along with interest from the defendant from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶24

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @09.00%p.a. with monthly rests with penal interest @02.00%p.a. from 04.01.2026 till realization.

¶25

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.

¶26

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.23,96,859.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Nine Only), with costs, current and future

¶27

¶28

OA NO.32/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. MANINDER SINGH BANAPHAL

¶29

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 asset i.e Combine Harvester 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.

¶30

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 14.05.2026. 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.

¶32

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 23.04.2026

¶33

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶34

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Maninder Singh Banaphal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Maninder Singh Banaphal

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Ashok Panjla Tiles and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Sandeep Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Satnam Singh and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Davinder Singh and Another

Bank of India versus Sh. Rajinder Singh Dhaliwal and Another

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Ajmer Singh and Another