Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Harminder Singh

DRT20 Jan 2026OA/694/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application filed under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993, deeming the defendant liable to pay the outstanding principal along with uniform simple interest at the discretion of the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 26,31,374.62 with uniform simple interest @8.00%p.a. from filing date till realization, admission of entitlement to recover from sale of mortgaged assets.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Harminder Singh — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.694/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 27.05.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 20.01.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under The State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Corporate Centre at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its Local Head Office at Sector 17-A, Chandigarh having branches all over India and one of its branch known as Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), 3^rd Floor, Administrative Office Building, Fountain Chowk, Civil Lines, Ludhiana through Sh. Vinod Kumar Lakhanpal, Chief Manager.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Harminder Singh S/o Sh. Santa Singh, R/o Village Mohanpur, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana, Punjab.

¶10

…….Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Tejinder Singh, Advocate proxy for Ms. Puja Sharma, Advocate for the applicant

¶13

Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 27.05.2025

¶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.26,31,374.62 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Thirty One Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Four and Paise Sixty Two Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Vinod Kumar Lakhanpal, Chief Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms State Bank of India Regulations which is Annexures A1 to this OA.

¶16

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide loan application dated 02.01.2015, which is Annexures A2 to this OA.

¶17

2 OA/694/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. HARMINDER SINGH

¶18

Thereafter, the defendant approached the applicant for grant of Pension Loan of Rs. 5,97,600.00 vide Loan Application dated 07.09.2022 which is Annexure A6 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide Letter of Arrangement dated 15.01.2015, which are Annexure A3 & A3A to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned Personal Loan i.e. Pension Loan of Rs.5,97,600.00 vide Arrangement Letter dated 07.09.2022 which is Annexure A7 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶20

Defendant mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land measuring 26 Kanal 13 Marla situated at Village Mohanpur, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana, Punjab vide declaration u/s 4(1) dated 09.01.2015 along with letter to Sub Registrar, which are Annexure A5 & A5A to this OA.

¶21

Documents executed: Hypothecation Agreement, dated 15.01.2015, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; DP Note, DP Note Delivery letter, Consent letter, all dated 07.09.2022 which are Annexures A7 to A10 to this OA; Revival letters dated 04.08.2017, 06.06.2020 and 15.05.2023 which are Annexures A11 to 13 to this OA; Legal notice dated 20.05.2024 which is Annexure A14 to this OA and Statement of Accounts which are Annexures A15 & A16 to this OA.

¶22

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.26,31,374.62 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.

¶23

The defendant was served notice to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and that was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.05.2025.

¶24

3 OA/694/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. HARMINDER SINGH

¶25

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Vinod Kumar Lakhanpal, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, has been filed.

¶26

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶27

It was argued by learned proxy counsel 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 A16 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 loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendant were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.26,31,374.62 (Rupees Twenty Six Lac Thirty One Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Four and Sixty Two Paise Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the

¶28

accounts.

¶29

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.75% p.a. with 2% penal interest and half yearly rests in KCC and @11.30% with 2% penal interest and monthly yearly rests from 15.05.2024 till the realization.

¶30

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 loans 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 @8.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA

¶31

¶32

OA/694/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. HARMINDER SINGH

¶33

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

¶34

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.26,31,374.62 (Rupees Twenty Six Lac Thirty One Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Four and Sixty Two Paise Only) with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amounts. 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.

¶35

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 02.02.2026.

¶38

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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal. Dated: 20.01.2026.

¶39

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

State Bank of India v. Sh. Harminder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Harminder 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. Rajinder Singh

State Bank of India versus M/S Poonam International and Another

State Bank of India versus M/S Adil Bakery and Another

State Bank of India versus M/S Bhole Nath Trading Co. and Others

Canara Bank versus Messrs Sampanna Creations and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Mela Ram and Others