Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Tarmanjot Singh

DRT8 Jul 2026OA/366/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-III, Chandigarh allowed an ex-parte application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of an agricultural term loan of Rs.21,04,270 against a defendant who failed to appear. Directions were issued for interest at 08% p.a. and recovery through hypothecated assets or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.21,04,270.00 with interest at 08% p.a.; sale of hypothecated asset; attachment and sale of personal assets.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.366/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 06.03.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 08.07.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, 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 the Local Head Office at Sector 17-A, Chandigarh and one of its Local Branch at AMCC, Phagwara, Kapurthala (Punjab) through its Chief Manager, Sh. Naresh Kumar Rattan.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Tarmanjot Singh S/o Sh. Salwinder Singh, R/o Village Hadiwal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, Punjab – 141126.

¶10

……..Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Ms. Anjali, Advocate proxy for Sh. Vinish Singla, Advocate for the applicant

¶13

None for Defendant (Already ex-parte vide order dated 04.07.2026).

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

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.21,04,270.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Four Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Naresh Kumar Rattan, Chief Manager of the applicant bank , who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms of the Gazette Notification dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 & 02.05.1987 issued by Executive Committee of Central Board in exercise of Powers conferred on it under Regulation Nos. 76 and 77 of State Bank of India Regulations, made by the RBI in exercise of Powers conferred by Sub Section (3) of Section 50 of State Bank of India Act, 1955.

¶16

¶17

OA NO.366/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. TARMANJOT SINGH

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan facility for purchase of Combine Harvester of Rs.21,16,500.00 vide Application Form for Agricultural Credit dated 03.10.2023, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan facility for purchase of Combine Harvester of Rs.21,16,000.00 vide Common Appraisal Memorandum for LOS and Letter of Arrangement, both dated 01.11.2023, which are Annexures A2 & A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant hypothecated his Moveable Asset i.e., Combine Harvester GAHR 930 bearing Chassis No. GAI930B240009, Engine No. PEHM119701, Registration No. PB10JK3424 vide Registration Certificate and Tax Invoice dated 13.02.2024, which are Annexures A6 & A7 to this OA.

¶20

Documents executed : Hypothecation Agreement dated 01.11.2023, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; CGTMSE Coverage Letter, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Statement of account along with certificate, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 09.09.2025, along with postal receipt, which is Annexure A9 to this OA.

¶21

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, there was a debit of Rs.21,04,270.00, 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.

¶22

The defendant was served summons to appear before this Tribunal, but no one appeared on behalf of the defendant and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 04.07.2026.

¶23

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Naresh Kumar Rattan, Chief Manager , State Bank of India has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶24

3 OA NO.366/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. TARMANJOT SINGH

¶25

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.

¶26

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A9 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.21,04,270.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Four Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy 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 pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @9.00%p.a. with monthly rests with penal interest @2%p.a. from 26.02.2026 till the realization.

¶27

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.

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.21,04,270.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Four Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Only), with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA

¶29

¶30

OA NO.366/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. TARMANJOT SINGH

¶31

till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated 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.

¶32

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 23.07.2026. 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.

¶34

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 08.07.2026

¶35

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶36

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Tarmanjot Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Tarmanjot 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 M/s G S Fashion Point and others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Gurpinder Singh and Others

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Eks Manufacturing Co. and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Tarsem Lal and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Raj Transport Company and Others

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Groove Hospitality and Others