Allowed

State Bank of India v. Smt. Karamjeet Kaur

DRT27 Jul 2026OA/39/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's Original Application filed under Section 19 of the RDB Act 1993. Following an ex-parte hearing, the Tribunal declared the defendant liable to repay the loan amount along with costs and fixed simple interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the defendant is liable to pay Rs.23,67,658.00 plus costs and simple interest @08.00%p.a. from filing of Original Application until realization of the amount.

State Bank of India versus Smt. Karamjeet Kaur — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.39/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 07.01.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 27.07.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body Corporate Constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Central Office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and having one of its Local Head Offices 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

¶8

Versus

¶9

Smt. Karamjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Jagpal Singh, R/o Village Bhari Mansa, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur (Punjab) - 148018.

¶10

…….. Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Anup Prajapati, Advocate proxy for Sh. Aseem Kataria, Advocate for the applicant

¶13

None for Defendant (Already ex-parte vide order dated 23.07.2026).

¶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.23,67,658.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Eight Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Jatinder Kumar Salaria, Chief Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms of the Gazette Notification dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 & 27.03.1987 under Regulation No. 76 and 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (3) of Section 50 of State Bank of India Act, 1955, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶16

2 OA NO.39/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SMT. KARAMJEET KAUR

¶17

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.28,50,000.00 vide Application Form for Agricultural Credit dated 02.03.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶18

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan facility for purchase of Combine Harvester of Rs.28,50,000.00 vide Letter of Arrangement dated 18.03.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶19

Defendant hypothecated her Moveable Asset i.e.,

¶20

Combine Harvester Model VISHAL 435 BRISK along with maize cutter, bearing Chassis No. MS10984122K22, Engine No. PMHM103602, Registration No. PB34C9780 vide Registration Certificate and Tax Invoices, both dated 20.03.2023 along with eway bills and vehicle delivery receipt, which are Annexures A5 to A8 to this OA. Documents executed : Hypothecation Agreement dated 18.03.2023, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Copy of Insurance dated 18.10.2024, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 04.12.2025, along with postal receipt, which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Statement of account along with certificate, which is Annexure A11 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.23,67,658.00, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but she 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 she was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23.07.2026.

¶23

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

¶24

3 OA NO.39/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SMT. KARAMJEET KAUR

¶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 A11 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facility, which was granted to her and for that she 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.23,67,658.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Eight 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. 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.23,67,658.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Eight Only), with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing

¶29

¶30

OA NO.39/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SMT. KARAMJEET KAUR

¶31

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 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. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 11.08.2026. 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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 27.07.2026

¶33

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

State Bank of India v. Smt. Karamjeet Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Smt. Karamjeet Kaur

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

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Jagsir Singh and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Sarabjit Atwal@ Sarabjit Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Pargat Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Kulbir and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S N. K. Industries and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Sun Spot Industries and Others