Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Amandeep Singh

DRT20 Jun 2026OA/658/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by SBI against a borrower for recovery of an agricultural term loan default. The Tribunal ordered the recovery of the principal sum with simple interest at 8% p.a. and authorized enforcement via sale of the hypothecated combine harvester or attachment of personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.23,13,810.00 principal plus simple interest at 8% p.a. from filing date; sale of hypothecated combine harvester or attachment of personal assets if dues remain unsatisfied.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.658/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 02.05.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 20.06.2026

¶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 (Behram, 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. Amandeep Singh S/o Sh. Kamaljeet Singh, R/o Village Mahlina, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Punjab - 144503.

¶10

……..Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Gaurav Thakur, Advocate proxy for Sh. Omkar Gupta, Advocate for the applicant

¶13

None for Defendant (Already ex-parte vide order dated 06.06.2026).

¶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.23,13,810.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Thirteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Ten Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Naresh Kumar Rattan, 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 & 29.10.2005 issued by Executive Committee of the Central Board in exercise of Power conferred on it under Regulation No. 76 and 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations made by RBI in exercise of Power conferred by

¶16

2 OA NO.658/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. AMANDEEP SINGH

¶17

Sub Section (3) of Section 50 of State Bank of India Act with previous sanction of Central Government.

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan facility for purchase of Combine Harvester of Rs.23,85,000.00 vide Application Form for Agricultural Credit dated 13.11.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan facility for purchase of Combine Harvester of Rs.23,85,000.00 vide Letter of Arrangement dated 16.11.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant hypothecated his Moveable Asset i.e., namely Combine Harvester Model SANT 5400, bearing Chassis no. SEW-5400K024-20, Engine no. CH1742598 vide Tax Invoice dated 23.11.2024 along with Form 22 and Sale Certificate, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. The Combine Harvester is not registered with any Transport Authority as stated in IA No. 1100/2026 was filed on 17.06.2026, in compliance of order dated 09.06.2026. Documents executed : Hypothecation Agreement dated 16.11.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 20.01.2026, along postal receipt, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Statement of account along with certificate, which is Annexure A6 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.23,13,810.00, 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, but no one appeared on behalf of the defendant and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06.06.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Naresh Kumar Rattan, Chief Manager, State bank of India has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶20

3 OA NO.658/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. AMANDEEP SINGH

¶21

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.

¶22

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A6 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.23,13,810.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Thirteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Ten Only), along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶23

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.00%p.a. with monthly rests from 21.04.2026 till the realization.

¶24

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 asset, 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.

¶25

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.23,13,810.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Thirteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Ten 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

¶26

¶27

OA NO.658/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. AMANDEEP SINGH

¶28

entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated Combine Harvester 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.

¶29

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 06.07.2026.

¶32

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 .

¶34

Dated: 20.06.2026

¶35

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶36

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Amandeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Amandeep 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

Union Bank of India versus M/S P.M. Enterprises and Others

The Federal Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Vajir Singh Alias Sh. Wazir Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sandip Kumar

Union Bank of India versus M/S D R Selections and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Boota Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Nirmal Singh