Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Mukhtiar Singh

DRT4 Jul 2026OA/791/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application instituted by State Bank of India against a defaulting borrower. The Tribunal deemed it just to grant simple interest at 8% p.a. instead of the claimed 9% and ordered recovery of the principal sum, costs, and interest through sale of hypothecated or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the application declaring the defendant liable to pay Rs. 34,00,143 with costs and simple interest at 8% p.a. Recovery ordered from hypothecated asset or personal assets.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.791/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 26.05.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 04.07.2026

¶6

State Bank of India a Body Corporate, constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and having its Corporate Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai carrying on its business of banking in India and abroad and having its Local Head Office at Sector 17-A, Chandigarh and Branch Office at State Bank of India, AMCC, Phagwara, Hargobind Nagar, Phagwara, District Kapurthala through its Chief Manager Sh. Naresh Kumar Rattan.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus Sh. Mukhtiar Singh S/o Sh. Tahil Singh, R/o Village Beetlan, Umarwal Billa, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶8

……. .Defendant

¶9

Advocates:

¶10

Argued by Sh. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate for the applicant None for Defendant (Already ex-parte vide order dated 02.07.2026).

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

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.34,00,143.00 (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs One Hundred and Forty Three 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 of India dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 & 02.05.1987 read with Regulations 76 and 77 of State Bank of India Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 50 (3) of State Bank of India Act.

¶13

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan facility for purchase of Combine

¶14

2 OA NO.791/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. MUKHTIAR SINGH

¶15

Harvester and Agricultural Implements of Rs.35,00,000.00 vide Application Form for Agricultural Credit dated 01.10.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶16

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan facility for purchase of Combine Harvester and Agricultural Implements of Rs.33,00,000.00 vide Common Appraisal Memorandum for LOS and Letter of Arrangement, both dated 05.10.2024, which are Annexures A2 & A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶17

Defendant hypothecated his Moveable Asset i.e., Combine Harvester Model MATHRU 4600 bearing Registration no. PB08FP3033, Chassis no. MEAW4600K241667, Engine no. RDHM426362 vide Provisional Registration Certificate, which is Annexure A5 to this OA. Documents executed : Hypothecation Agreement dated 05.10.2024, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 26.11.2025, along with postal receipt, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Notice u/s 13(2) dated 27.11.2025, along with postal receipt, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Statement of account along with certificates, which are Annexures A8 to A10 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.34,00,143.00, 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 02.07.2026. 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.

¶18

3 OA NO.791/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. MUKHTIAR SINGH

¶19

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.

¶20

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 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.34,00,143.00 (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs One Hundred and Forty Three Only), along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount. 10. 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 penal interest @2% till the realization.

¶21

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.

¶22

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.34,00,143.00 (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs One Hundred and Forty Three 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

¶23

¶24

OA NO.791/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SH. MUKHTIAR SINGH

¶25

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.

¶26

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶27

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶28

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 20.07.2026.

¶29

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.

¶30

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶31

Dated: 04.07.2026

¶32

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶33

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Mukhtiar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Mukhtiar 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 Ganga Road Lines and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Smt. Paramjit Kaur and Others

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Crystal Knitfab and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Shri Ram Cargo Movers and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Navkar Goods Carrier and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jasvir Singh and Another