Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Kuldeep Singh

DRT27 Aug 2026OA/654/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a loan of Rs. 25,06,697 by defendant Kuldeep Singh. The tribunal recognized the defendant's liability and granted simple interest at 08% p.a. instead of the claimed 9%.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued; defendant liable to pay Rs. 25,06,697 plus costs and simple interest at 08% per annum from filing till realization.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Kuldeep Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.654/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 02.05.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 27.08.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body Corporate constituted under State Bank of India Act 1955 and having its Corporate Centre, at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point Mumbai and having branches all over India and one of its branches amongst other places at (Balachaur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar) AMCC Guru Hargobind Nagar, Phagwara through its Authorized Officer Sh. Naresh Kumar Rattan, Chief Manager.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Kuldeep Singh S/o Sh. Sohan Lal, R/o Village Jagatpur Road Balachaur, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Punjab - 144521.

¶10

……. .Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Omkar Gupta, Advocate for the applicant

¶13

None for Defendant (Already ex-parte vide order dated 21.07.2026)

¶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.25,06,697.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Six Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Seven Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Naresh Kumar Rattan, 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 & 29.10.2005 issued by Executive Committee of the Central Board in exercise of the power conferred on it under Regulation No. 76 and 77 of State Bank of India Regulations, made by RBI in exercise of Power conferred by Sub Section (3) of Section 50 of State Bank of India Act, with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

¶16

2 OA NO.654/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. KULDEEP SINGH

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility for purchase of Tractor T54 along with agriculture implements of Rs.25,65,000.00 vide Loan Application Form for Agricultural Credit dated 15.12.2023, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶18

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility for purchase of Tractor T54 along with agriculture implements of Rs.25,65,000.00 vide Letter of Arrangement dated 08.02.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶19

Defendant hypothecated his Moveable Assets i.e., Tractor (Model T54), Trolley (14/7), Laser Leveler Sports, Straw Reaper, Rotavator Disc, Agricultural Sprayer, Hydraulic Cultivator, and Wheat Thresher, vide Tax Invoices, dated 10.02.2024, 14.02.2024, which are Annexures A4 & A5 to this OA; however, the hypothecated vehicle was not registered with the transport authority, as submitted in the affidavit of Sh. Naresh Kumar Rattan, Chief Manager, filed vide IA No. 1438/2026 dated 29.07.2026 in compliance of order dated 23.07.2026. Documents executed : Hypothecation Agreement, dated 08.02.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 06.04.2026, along with postal receipt, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Statement of account along with certificate, which is Annexure A7 to this OA. 5. 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.25,06,697.00, 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. 6. The defendant was served summons to appear before this Tribunal. After Service of summons, the defendant appeared in person and file copy of his Aadhar Card vide dairy no. 10078 on 02.06.2026 and sought some time to hire a counsel. Thereafter, none appeared on

¶20

3 OA NO.654/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. KULDEEP SINGH

¶21

behalf of defendant and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.07.2026. Thereafter, the OA was fixed for final orders after hearing of arguments of learned counsel for applicant. Subsequently, Sh. Deepam Raghav, Advocate along with Sh. Rahul Rana, Advocate appeared and filed their Power of Attorney on behalf of defendant and also filed IA No. 1370/2026 for setting aside ex-parte orders on 21.07.2026. The said IA No. 1370/2026 was dismissed on 23.07.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Naresh Kumar Rattan, Chief Manager, State Ban k of India h as been filed.

¶22

8. Heard	ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶23

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.

¶24

From the perusal of all the Annexures 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, 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.25,06,697.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Six Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Seven Only), along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶25

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 from 24.04.2026 till the realization.

¶26

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

¶27

4 OA NO.654/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. KULDEEP SINGH

¶28

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.

¶29

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.25,06,697.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Six Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Seven 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 along with agriculture implements 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.

¶30

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 11.09.2026. 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.

¶31

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 27.08.2026

¶32

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer,

¶33

DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Kuldeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Kuldeep 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

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Ajmer Singh

Satkar Carrier and Movers versus Axis Bank and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Partap Singh through His Legal Heirs and Others

Canara Bank versus M/s Nirmal Sagar Enterprises and others

Bank of India versus Sh. Manjot Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Gs Trading Company and Others