Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Sikander Singh

DRT25 Jun 2026OA/685/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 20.36 Lakhs. The court declared the debt due and granted a recovery certificate, allowing recovery from the sale of hypothecated assets. The tribunal set simple interest at 8% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of debt liability; issuance of Recovery Certificate; permission to recover amount from sale of hypothecated asset and attachment of personal assets if dues remain unsatisfied.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.685/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 12.05.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 25.06.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and having its Central Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and its Local Head Office at Sector 17-A, Chandigarh and one of its Branch Office amongst other places at Samrala Branch, Chandigarh Road, District Ludhiana through its Chief Manager and Principal Officer Sh. Satanand Singh of the Applicant Bank.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Sikander Singh S/o Sh. Swaran Singh, R/o Sainsowal Khurd, Punjgaraian, Samrala, District Ludhiana.

¶10

……..Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Bhavya Sagar, Advocate for the applicant None for Defendant (Already ex-parte vide order dated 23.06.2026).

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

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.20,35,996.00 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Six Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Satanand Singh, Chief Manager of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms of the Gazette Notification published in the Gazette of India dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972, 02.05.1987 & 29.10.2005 issued by Executive Committee of Central Board in exercise of Power conferred on it under General Regulation Nos. 76 and 77 of State Bank of India General Regulations framed in Exercise

¶15

2 OA NO.685/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. SIKANDER SINGH

¶16

of the Powers conferred by Sub Section (3) of Section 50 of State Bank of India Act, 1955, with previous sanction of Central Government.

¶17

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 29.07.2023, which is Annexure A1 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan facility for purchase of Combine Harvester of Rs.23,85,000.00 vide Letter of Arrangement dated 29.07.2023, 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., Combine Harvester NEW HIRA 985 bearing Chassis no. RCS985H231620, Engine no. PHHM417413, Registration No. PB10JM3092 vide Tax Invoice dated 23.08.2023 and Registration Certificate, which are Annexures A6 & A7 to this OA.

¶18

Documents executed : Hypothecation Agreement dated 04.08.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA; Standing Instructions for Transfer of funds dated 04.08.2023, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Quotations, which are Annexure A5(Colly) to this OA; Notice u/s 13(2) dated 23.10.2025, along with postal receipt, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 25.03.2026, along with postal receipt, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Statement of account along with certificate, which are Annexures A10 & A11 to this OA.

¶19

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.20,35,996.00, 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 23.06.2026.

¶20

3 OA NO.685/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. SIKANDER SINGH

¶21

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Satanand Singh, Chief Manager, State bank of India has been filed.

¶22

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 A11 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.20,35,996.00 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Six 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 with penal interest @2%p.a. from 24.03.2026 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 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.

¶27

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of

¶28

4 OA NO.685/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. SIKANDER SINGH

¶29

Rs.20,35,996.00 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Six 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 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.

¶30

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 10.07.2026. 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 .

¶34

Dated: 25.06.2026

¶35

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶36

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Sikander Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Sikander 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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Kiyansh Traders Co. and Others

Maninder Kaur and Another versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Jagdambay Life Style and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Samrinder Singh and Another

Prince and Another versus Dcb Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. ravinder singh