Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Santokh Singh

DRT17 Feb 2026OA/380/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the debtor recovery application for Rs. 26.97 lakhs advanced by State Bank of India. The court fixed a uniform simple interest rate of 8% p.a. instead of the claimed rate. Recovery was directed from hypothecated or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 26,97,664/- plus simple interest at 8% p.a. from hypothecated or personal assets was ordered. Recovery Certificate issued.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.380/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 20.11.2021

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 17.02.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a statutory corporation constituted under the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955(23 of 1955) and the being the successor to State bank of Patiala under the “Acquisition of State Bank of Patiala Order, 22.02.2017” passed by the Central Government under Section 35 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955) having its Branch at VPO Sahiba, Tehsil Balachaur, District S.B.S. Nagar (Punjab) through its Branch Manager, Sh. Mohammad Istekar

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Santokh Singh S/o Sh. Darshan Singh, R/o Village Dayal, Post Office Saroya, Tehsil Balachaur, District S.B.S. Nagar (Punjab)

¶10

…….Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Tejinder Singh, Advocate proxy for Sh. Banni Thomas, Advocate for the applicant

¶13

Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 24.08.2023

¶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.26,97,664.00 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Four Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Mohammad Istekar, Branch Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms of Gazette Notification dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972, 27.03.1987 issued by Executive Committee of the Central Board of Directors in exercise of power conferred on it under regulation 76 & 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955 made by

¶16

2 OA/380/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. SANTOKH SINGH

¶17

Reserve Bank of India in exercise of power conferred by Sub-Section 3 of Section 50 of State Bank of India Act, with previous sanction of Central Government.

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide loan application dated 29.12.2015, which is Annexures A1 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide Letter of Arrangement dated 30.12.2015, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶20

Defendant mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land measuring 24Kanal-00Marla situated at Village Dayal/240, Tehsil Balachaur, District S.B.S Nagar, Punjab vide Mortgage dated 29.12.2015, along with its translation, which is Annexure A3 to this OA.

¶21

Documents executed: Hypothecation Agreement dated 30.12.2015 which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Balance Confirmatory-cumAcknowledgement of Security Letter dated 30.01.2017 & Revival Letters dated 07.01.2020 and 18.01.2020 which are Annexure A5(Colly) to this OA; Legal notice dated 24.09.2018 and 07.06.2021 with postal receipts, Letter dated 05.10.2020, 16.07.2021, which are Annexure A6(Colly) to this OA; Statement account with certificate, which is Annexure A7 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.26,97,664.00 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.

¶23

The defendant was served notice to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte vide order dated 24.08.2023.

¶24

3 OA/380/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. SANTOKH SINGH

¶25

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

¶26

Heard ex-parte 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 A7 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.26,97,664.00 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Six Hundred Sixty 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 pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @10.60% p.a. with half yearly rests from 18.11.2021 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 Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @8.00%p.a. 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.

¶30

4 OA/380/2022 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. SANTOKH SINGH

¶31

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.26,97,664.00 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Four Only) with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%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.

¶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 05.03.2026. 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.

¶34

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

¶35

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

State Bank of India v. Sh. Santokh Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Santokh 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

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