Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Pargat Singh

DRT29 Apr 2026OA/424/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of Rs. 35,99,481.00 outstanding to a borrower. The court confirmed the liability and granted simple interest at 8% per annum from the filing date, authorizing recovery from hypothecated or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

To pay Rs. 35,99,481.00 with costs and future simple interest at 8% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Pargat Singh — Arbitration | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.424/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 13.03.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 29.04.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a Body Corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and having its Corporate Office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its Local Head Office at Sector- 17, Chandigarh and Branches all over India including one of its specialized branch known as Stressed Assets Recovery Branch is situated at 1^st Floor, S.C.O. 15, Sector 7C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Authorized Officer, Sh. Varun Kumar, Chief Manager

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Pargat Singh, S/o Sh. Joginder Singh, R/o Village Bhari Mansa, Post Office Kandargarh, Tehsil and District Malerkotla, Punjab- 148023 ……..Defendant

¶10

Advocates:

¶11

Argued by Ms. Komal Tuteja, Advocate proxy for Sh. Ajay Singla, Advocate for applicant

¶12

None for defendant (already ex-parte vide order dated 23.04.2026)

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

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. 35,99,481.00 (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Four Hundred Eighty One Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Varun Kumar, Chief Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms of Notification dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 and 27.03.1987 issued by the Executive Committee of the Central Board of Directors in exercise of powers conferred on it and Regulation no. 76 and 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations, framed by Reserve

¶15

2 OA/424/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. PARGAT SINGH

¶16

Bank of India in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section 3 of section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 with the previous sanction of Central Government vide Notification dated 02.05.1987, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of Term Loan for purchase of Combine Harvester of Rs. 31.95 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 27.03.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶18

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs. 31.95 Lacs vide Letter of Arrangement dated 06.04.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶19

Defendant hypothecated his moveable asset namely Harvester Vishal 435 Brisk Plus bearing Registration no. PB28J5399, Engine no. RNHM105740 and Chassis no. MS13463042K24 vide Tax Invoice dated 10.04.2024 along with RC, which is Annexure A5 to this OA and Quotation dated 22.03.2024, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. Documents executed: Hypothecation Agreement dated 06.04.2024, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; CERSAI, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Notice dated 28.05.2025, which is Annexure A8 to this OA and Account Statement with certificate, which is Annexure A9 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. 35,99,481.00, 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. 6. The defendant was served summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23.04.2026.

¶20

3 OA/424/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. PARGAT SINGH

¶21

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Varun Kumar, Chief Manager, State Bank of India has been filed.

¶22

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶23

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.

¶24

From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A9 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which were 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. 35,99,481.00 (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Four Hundred Eighty One Only), along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account. 10. In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @9.00%p.a. plus @2% p.a. penal interest with monthly rest from the 18.02.2026 till 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 the 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 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

4 OA/424/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. PARGAT SINGH

¶27

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.35,99,481.00 (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Four Hundred Eighty One 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 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.

¶28

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶30

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 20.05.2026.

¶31

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.

¶32

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 29.04.2026

¶33

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶34

Presiding Officer,

¶35

DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Pargat Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Pargat 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 Sh. Ashwani Jindal and Others

Union Bank of India versus Ms Shree Shyam Enterprises and Another

State Bank of India versus Smt. Sarita Vohra and Others

Canara Bank versus Sh. Satbir Singh

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Lakhvir Singh

Union Bank of India versus Sh.JAsvir Singh