Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Jasvir Singh and Another

DRT4 Jul 2026OA/412/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte application filed by State Bank of India against two borrowers for recovery of a term loan declared as NPA, granting the principal amount plus simple interest at 8% p.a. and authorizing attachment of assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 22,68,335 plus costs and simple interest at 8% p.a. via Recovery Certificate and attachment/sale of assets.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jasvir Singh and Another — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.412/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 11.03.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 04.07.2026

¶6

State Bank of India a Body Corporate, constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and having its Corporate Office at Madam 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, AMCC Rupnagar, Opposite HMT Resort, Bela Road, Rupnagar, Tehsil and District Rupnagar through its Chief Manager Ms. Purvi Khatri.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Jasvir Singh S/o Sh. Gurnam Singh, R/o Village Shatabgarh, PO Behlolpur, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana.

¶10

M/s Sukhmani Agro, Near Kalra Resort, Rahon Road, Machhiwara Sahib, District Ludhiana through its proprietor.

¶11

……..Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate for the applicant

¶14

None for Defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 02.07.2026).

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.22,68,335.00 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Five Only). The Original Application has been filed through Ms. Purvi Khatri , 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 & 27.03.1987 issued by Executive Committee of the Central Board in exercise of powers conferred on it under

¶17

2 OA NO.412/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. JASVIR SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶18

Regulation No. 76 and 77 of State Bank of India Regulations, made by RBI in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-committee.

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility for purchase of Tractor and implements of Rs.22,00,000.00 vide Application Form for Agricultural Credit dated 01.09.2025, which is Annexure A1 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility for purchase of Tractor and implements of Rs.22,00,000.00 vide Common Appraisal Memorandum for LOS dated 09.09.2025 and Letter of Arrangement dated 11.09.2025, which are Annexures A2 & A4 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant no. 1. 4. As per OA, the Bank Notice dated 11.02.2026 issued to defendant no. 2 for not submitting the Registration Certificate, which is Annexure A6 to this OA. Documents executed : Udyam Registration Certificate dated 29.08.2025, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Hypothecation Agreement dated 11.09.2025, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 16.02.2026, 18.02.2026, along with postal receipts, which are Annexures A7 & A8 to this OA; Statement of account along with certificates, which are Annexures A9 to A11 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.22,68,335.00, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal, but no one appeared on behalf of the defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 02.07.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Ms. Purvi Khatri , Chief Manager, State Bank of India has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶20

3 OA NO.412/2026

¶21

STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. JASVIR SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶22

It was argued by learned 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 A11 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no. 1 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 no. 1 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.22,68,335.00 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Five Only), along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶24

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @12.25%p.a. with penal interest @2%p.a. till the 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 undertaking of the defendant no. 1, 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 defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.22,68,335.00 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Five Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00% p.a. in the loan account

¶27

¶28

OA NO.412/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. JASVIR SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶29

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 by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 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 20.07.2026. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants 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: 04.07.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer,

¶30

DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Jasvir Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Jasvir Singh and Another

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 Ganga Road Lines and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Smt. Paramjit Kaur and Others

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Crystal Knitfab and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Shri Ram Cargo Movers and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Navkar Goods Carrier and Others

Bank of India versus Sh. Gurdeep Singh and Another