Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Gurmail Singh

DRT26 Feb 2026OA/339/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's original application under Section 19, declaring the respondent liable to pay the outstanding sum. It ordered uniform simple interest at 8% p.a. and authorized recovery via sale of mortgaged assets or attachment of personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Respondent declared liable to pay Rs.28,60,444/- with 8% simple interest; recovery authorized via SARFAESI Act or attachment of personal assets.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Gurmail Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.339/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 02.02.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 26.02.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Corporate Office at Madame 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, Main Branch Shakti Nagar, Dera Bassi, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) through its Chief Manager Sh. B.S. Uppal.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Gurmail Singh S/o Sh. Avtar Singh, R/o Village Kakrali, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Mohali)

¶10

….……Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Ms. Sakshi Chauhan, Advocate proxy for Sh. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate for the applicant

¶13

Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 27.05.2025

¶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.28,60,444.00 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Sixty Thousand Four Hundred Forty Four Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. B.S. Uppal, Chief Manager o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms of Gazette Notifications dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972, 27.03.1987 issued by the Executive Committee of the Central Board in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Regulation no.76 & 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations, framed in exercise of the

¶16

2 OA 339/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. GURMAIL SINGH

¶17

powers conferred by Sub Section 3 of Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955.

¶18

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant approached the applicant for grant KCC Limit of Rs.18.00 Lacs vide Application dated 17.07.2015, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.18.00 Lacs vide Letter of Arrangement dated 21.07.2015, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶20

Defendant mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land Measuring 11Bighas-03Biswa situated at Village Mohi Kalan, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab vide Declaration dated 11.07.2015 u/s 4(1) of Punjab Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1978, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and letter to Sub Registrar for creation of charge, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Jamabandi for the year 2010-11, along with its translation, which is Annexure A6 to this OA.

¶21

Documents executed: Hypothecation agreement dated 21.07.2015, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Notices dated 05.02.2022 and 28.07.2022, along with translation, which are Annexures A7 & A8 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 13.06.2022, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; BCL/Revival Letters dated 24.03.2017, 23.08.2018, 20.03.2020 and 20.03.2023 which are Annexures A10 to A13 to this OA; Statements of Account with certificate, which are Annexures A14 to A16 to this OA.

¶22

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.28,60,444.00, 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.

¶23

3 OA 339/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. GURMAIL SINGH

¶24

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 27.05.2025.

¶25

In support of the OA, affidavit of B.S. Uppal, Chief Manager, State Bank of India h as been filed.

¶26

Heard arguments and perused record.

¶27

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 A16 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.28,60,444.00 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Sixty Thousand Four Hundred Forty Four Only). along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶28

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.45%p.a. with 2% penal interest with half yearly rests from 21.01.2024 till the realization.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

OA 339/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. GURMAIL SINGH

¶32

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

¶33

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.28,60,444.00 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Sixty Thousand Four Hundred Forty Four 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 assets /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.

¶34

Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 16.03.2026. 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.

¶35

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 26.02.2026. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Gurmail Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Gurmail 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

Canara Bank versus M/S Anmol Hosiery and Another

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Jatinder Singh and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Harjeet Singh

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Gagandeep Singh

Bank of India versus Sh. Gurmukh Singh alias gorkha and Others

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Kapur Singh since deceased through LRs