Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Sukhdev Singh

DRT23 Jan 2026OA/469/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India against a borrower for recovery of Rs.26,06,868 undisclosed. The Tribunal upheld the bank's claim, reduced the interest rate to 8% p.a., and ordered issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs.26,06,868 with costs and 8% p.a. interest. Recovery certificate issued. Liability enforceable via sale of mortgaged/personal assets.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Sukhdev Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.469/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 08.03.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 23.01.2026

¶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 17-A, Chandigarh and one of its Branch at ADB Mansa through its Branch Manager Sh. Pardeep Kumar.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

Sh. Sukhdev Singh son of Sh. Kaur Singh resident of House No. 145, Village Burj Bhalaike, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa, Punjab.

¶9

….……Defendant

¶10

Advocates:

¶11

Argued by Ms. Seerat Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh.Pankaj Beri, Advocate for applicant

¶12

Sh. Jaiteshwar Singh Bhandari, Advocate for Defendant

¶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.26,06,868.00 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Six Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Eight Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Branch Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in 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 & 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 sanction of the Central Government.

¶15

2 OA/469/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SUKHDEV SINGH

¶16

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.16.45 Lacs & Term Loan of Rs.1.00 Lac for Debt Swap vide Loan Applications dated 18.02.2016 and 08.03.2016, which are Annexures A1 and A2 to this OA.

¶17

The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.16.45 Lacs & Term Loan of Rs.1.00 Lac for Debt Swap vide Letter of arrangement dated 08.03.2016, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶18

As per the OA, the debt swap account stands closed.

¶19

Defendant had mortgaged his movable property i.e. land measuring 60 Kanal situated at Village Burj Bhalaike, Tehsil Jhunir, District Mansa, Punjab vide Declaration under Section 4(1) dated 23.02.2016, which is Annexure A6 to this OA.

¶20

Documents executed: Hypothecation agreement, Undertaking, both dated 08.03.016, which are Annexures A4 & A5 to this OA; Revival letter dated 05.03.2019 & 02.03.2022, which are Annexures A7 & A8 to this OA; Notice dated 15.01.2024, which is Annexure A9 to this OA and Statement of account, which is Annexure A10 to this OA.

¶21

The KCC 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.26,06,868.00, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but he 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 notices to appear before this Tribunal. Sh. Jaiteshwar Singh Bhandari, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendant on 07.03.2025 and filed his Power of Attorney on behalf of the defendant. Since WS was not filed by defendant within stipulated period, his opportunity to file the WS was closed and his defense was struck off vide order dated 20.11.2025.

¶23

2 OA/469/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SUKHDEV SINGH

¶24

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

¶25

Heard arguments and perused record.

¶26

No arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for defendant. 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. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A10 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities 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 KCC 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.26,06,868.00 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Six Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Eight Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶27

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed [email protected]%p.a. with 2% penal interest with half yearly rest from 07.01.2024 till realization.

¶28

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 @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till

¶29

2 OA/469/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SUKHDEV SINGH

¶30

realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶31

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.26,06,868.00 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Six Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Eight 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/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. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 05.02.2026. 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.

¶33

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 23.01.2026.

¶34

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

State Bank of India v. Sh. Sukhdev Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Sukhdev 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

State Bank of India versus Sh. Kulwinder Singh

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Alliance Paints and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Satnam Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Hira Singh

Axis Bank versus Sh. Harjinder Singh and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Rakesh Kumar Alias Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal and Another