Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Jasmer Singh

DRT5 May 2026OA/82/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India against Jasmer Singh for recovery of an outstanding term loan of Rs.29,92,450.00. The tribunal observed that interest rates had fallen drastically and, exercising discretion, ordered future interest at 8% p.a. instead of the claimed 9% plus penalty.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.29,92,450.00 along with simple interest @08.00% p.a. Recovery Certificate issued.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 82/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 15.01.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 05.05.2026

¶6

State Bank of lndia, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of lndia Act, 1955 having its Corporate Office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and having branches all over lndia, one of its Branch situated at Samrala, Chandigarh Road, Tehsil Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana through its Chief Manager Sh. Satanand Singh, who is Authorized Officer.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Jasmer Singh S/o Sh. Kesar Singh R/o. Village Mand Jodhewal, Tehsil Samrala, Distt. Ludhiana.

¶10

….……Defendant

¶11

Advocate:

¶12

Argued by Ms. Lovedeep Kaur, Advocate proxy for Ms. Puja Sharma, Advocate for the applicant

¶13

None for Defendant (already ex parte vide order dated 29.04.2026)

¶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.29,92,450.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine lakhs Ninety Two thousand Four hundred Fifty 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 Gazette Notification dated 26.09.1959 , 26.09.1972 and 02.05.1987 and 17.05.2001 issued by the Executive Committee of the Central Board in exercise of powers conferred on it under Regulation No.76 and 77 of State Bank of lndia General

¶16

¶17

OA/82/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. JASMER SINGH

¶18

Regulations, in exercise of powers conferred by the sub section 3 of Section 50 of the State bank of lndia Act, 1955. 2. The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of Term Loan of Rs.27.52Lacs for purchase of Tractor, Trolly & Equipment’s, vide Loan Application dated15.02.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.27.52Lacs vide Letter of Arrangement dated 22.02.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA. 4. Defendant hypothecated his tractor Model Name PREET 6049-I 2WD, bearing Registration no. PB10JS0478, Chassis No. FEM60AV01077A, Engine no. P450-01145 vide Hypothecation Agreement dated 22.02.2024, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Invoice dated 13.03.2024, 19.03.2024 & 11.04.2024, which is Annexure A5 to this OA.

¶19

However, in the OA, it is mentioned that despite repeated request from the applicant, defendant did not supply the copy of Registration Certificate for Tractor, purchased out of the Bank Finance showing the hypothecation entered in favour of Bank. Documents executed : State Bank of India Regulations, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 04.07.2025, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Demand Notice dated 13.05.2026, which is Annexure A7 to this OA and Statement of Account with certificate, which is Annexure A8 to this OA. 5. The account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account, there was a debit of Rs.29,92,450.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine lakhs Ninety Two thousand Four hundred Fifty only), 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.

¶20

¶21

OA/82/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. JASMER SINGH

¶22

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 on 29.04.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Satanand Singh, Chief Manager , State Bank of India, has been filed. 8. Heard ex parte arguments and perused record. 9. 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.

¶23

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the Term Loan, 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, account of the defendant was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.29,92,450.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine lakhs Ninety Two thousand Four hundred Fifty 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 pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @9.00% p.a. plus penal interest @2.00% p.a. with monthly rests from 30.11.2025 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 assets, 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

¶25

¶26

OA/82/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. JASMER SINGH

¶27

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.

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.29,92,450.00 (Rupees Twenty Nine lakhs Ninety Two thousand Four hundred Fifty 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 assets 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. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 26.05.2026 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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 05.05.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

State Bank of India v. Sh. Jasmer Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Jasmer 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Rajbinder Singh, and Another

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Gurdev Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Rakesh Yadav and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Mehnga Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Jaswant Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Lord Shiva Transport and Others