Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Harmanpreet Singh

DRT29 Apr 2026OA/433/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal disposed of an ex-parte application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of an NPA loan amounting to Rs. 43.34 lacs. The tribunal allowed the application, granted simple interest and authorized recovery from hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery order passed for Rs. 43,34,474.00 with simple interest at 8%p.a. from filing date; Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Harmanpreet Singh — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.433/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 16.03.2026

¶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 Central Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its Local Head Office at Sector 17A, Chandigarh and Branches all over India including one of its Branch at Gidderbaha through its dealing Branch at SBI, AMCC Muktsar, District Sri Muktsar Sahib through its Manager, Sh. Kuldeep Kumar

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Harmanpreet Singh, S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, R/o Dr. Kuldeep Singh Wali Gali, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab- 152112

¶10

….……Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Ms. Sonal Chhabra, Advocate for applicant

¶13

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

¶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. 43,34,474.00 (Rupees Forty Three Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Four Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, Manager of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application under the terms of Gazette Notification published in the Gazette of India dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 and 02.05.1987 issued under Regulation no. 76 and 77 of State Bank of India Regulations framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 3 of section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 with the previous

¶16

2 OA NO.433/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. HARMANPREET SINGH

¶17

sanction of the Central Government vide Gazette Notification, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of Term Loan of Rs. 39.40 Lacs, vide Loan Application, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs. 39.40 Lacs vide Letter of Arrangement dated 31.12.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and condition were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. The defendant hypothecated his Trolly, Mulcher, Super Seader, Straw Reaper and Santosh Multicrop Chopper etc. vide Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation dated 31.12.2024 and Bills of Purchased Items dated 10.01.2025, which are Annexure A4 and A5 to this OA. Documents executed: Legal notice dated 19.12.2025, which is Annexure A6 to this OA and Statement of Account with certificate, which is Annexure A7 to this OA. 5. The account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account, there was a debit of Rs. 43,34,474.00 (Rupees Forty Three Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Four Only), 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 the defendant and he was proceeded ex-parte on 23.04.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Kuldeep Kumar , Manager, State Bank of India h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶19

3 OA NO.433/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. HARMANPREET SINGH

¶20

From the perusal of all the Annexure 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. 43,34,474.00 (Rupees Forty Three Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Four 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 pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @9.00%p.a. plus penal interest @2% with monthly rest from 09.03.2026 till the realization.

¶21

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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.43,34,474.00 (Rupees Forty Three Lacs Thirty Four Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Four 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

¶22

¶23

OA NO.433/2026

¶24

STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. HARMANPREET SINGH

¶25

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.

¶26

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶30

Dated: 29.04.2026

¶31

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶32

Presiding Officer,

¶33

DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Harmanpreet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Harmanpreet 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

State Bank of India versus Sh. Pargat Singh

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Lakhvir Singh