Allowed

State Bank of India v. Priya

DRT19 May 2026OA/81/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed SBI's application for the recovery of ₹26.89 lakhs with interest from the defendant. Following an ex parte proceeding for non-appearance, the court validated the bank's evidence and ordered recovery via the sale of mortgaged property and other assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹26,89,345/- with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; Sale of mortgaged property ordered.

State Bank of India versus Priya — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 81 of 2023 Date of Institution: 01.12.2022 Date of Decision: 19.05.2026

¶4

SBI having its branches all over India and a branch at RACPC, First Floor, SBI Civil Lines, Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Priya w/o Gursahib Singh r/o H.no.3A, Rasila Nagar, Near Rasila Ashram, Basti Danishmanda, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶8

……….Defendant

¶9

Advocates

¶10

Sh. Gurinderjit Singh, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendant - ex parte .

¶11

OA for the Recovery of ₹26,89,345/- with interest @7.1% per annum with monthly rests from 01.12.2022.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

SBI (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹26,89,345/- with interest against Priya (defendant).

¶14

Bank’s case is that on 09.12.2020, it had granted a loan of ₹25.90Lacs to the defendant in the form of Housing Loan. On 19.12.2020, bank granted a loan of ₹0.40Lacs in the form of Housing Loan under SBI Suraksha Loan. On 10.04.2022, bank granted a loan of ₹2.00Lacs in the form of Home Top up Yono Loan. To secure the loans, Defendant had mortgaged her property (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loans were chargeable to interest @7.1% per annum with monthly rests. On 29.11.2022, a sum of ₹26,89,345/- was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶15

¶16

On 21.01.2023, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 21.12.2023, she proceeded was ex parte .

¶17

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Ram Chander Kalla, Authorised Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-16. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced loans under different schemes and on 29.11.2022, a sum of ₹26,89,345/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹26,89,345/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Eighty Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Five Only) with interest @7.1% per annum with monthly rests from 01.12.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant.

¶18

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶19

Party is directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 23.06.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property(ies) and standing crops as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act .

¶20

A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the party.

¶21

Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 19.05.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh (Law Researcher)

State Bank of India v. Priya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Priya

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 Sri Subir Chatterjee

State Bank of India versus Sri Ganesh Barman

Ms Khan Brothers Ginning and Pressing Through its Authorized Signatory Mr. Ejas Khan Yunus Khan versus State Bank of India

Prabhjit Singh versus Hindu Cooperative Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M S Advance Associate

Harinder Singh versus Punjab and Sind Bank