Allowed

State Bank of India v. Smt. Surinder Kaur

DRT23 Jul 2026OA/884/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT-III, Chandigarh allowed an application filed under Section 19 of the RDB Act by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 25.48 Lakhs. The court reduced the claimed interest rate, holding 8% simple per annum was appropriate given market rates, and directed issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Order declaring respondent liable to pay Rs. 25,48,494 plus 8% simple interest per annum from date of filing; issued Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Smt. Surinder Kaur — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 884/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 12.06.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 23.07.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, and having its Corporate Office at Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its Local Head Office at Sector17, Chandigarh and branches all over India, including one of its Specialized Branch known as Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, situated at 1st Floor, S.C.O. 15, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its authorized officer, Sh. Ankush Kher, Chief Manager.

¶7

…..Applicant

¶8

Smt. Surinder Kaur, W/o Sh. Baljit Singh, D/o Sh. Nachhatter Singh, R/o Village Amamgarh (59), Bir Amamgarh, Malerkotla – 148023.

¶9

………. Defendant

¶10

Advocates:

¶11

Argued by Ms. Naveeta, Advocate proxy for Sh. Ajay Singla, Advocate for Applicant

¶12

None for Defendant (Already ex parte vide order dated 21.07.2026)

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.25,48,494.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lac Forty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Four Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Ankush Kher, Chief Manager, of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Notification dated 02.05.1987, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶15

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs.1.60 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 23.03.2022, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶16

¶17

OA/884/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SMT. SURINDER KAUR

¶18

Thereafter, the defendant approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs.23.85 Lacs for purchase of combine harvester vide Loan Application dated 25.01.2024, which is Annexure A6 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs. 1.60 Lacs vide Letter of Arrangement dated 28.03.2022, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.23.85 Lacs for purchase of combine harvester vide Letter of Arrangement dated 31.01.2024, which is Annexure A7 to this OA. 4. Defendant hypothecated her combine harvester bearing Registration no. PB47G3839, Make Angad Agro Industries, Model NEW FRIENDS-913, Engine no. E624CDPK453225A, Chassis no. AAI913C240001 vide Hypothecation Agreement dated 31.01.2024, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Invoice dated 07.03.2024, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Registration Certificate dated 26.01.2026, which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Documents executed : Hypothecation Agreement dated 08.04.2022, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Revival Letter dated 06.02.2025, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; CERSAI, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 15.05.2026, which is Annexure A12 to this OA; Account Statement along with Certificate – KCC, which is Annexure A13 to this OA; Account Statement along with Certificate – TL, which is Annexure A14 to this OA.

¶19

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.25,48,494.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lac Forty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Four Only), which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but she did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶20

¶21

OA/884/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SMT. SURINDER KAUR

¶22

The defendant was served summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and she was proceeded ex-parte on 21.07.2026 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Ankush Kher, 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. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A14 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities, which were granted to her and for that she 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, both the 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.25,48,494.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lac Forty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Four 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. along with 2%p.a. penal interest with monthly rests from 05.05.2026 till the realization. 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 appropriate to grant simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both the loan

¶23

¶24

OA/884/2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS SMT. SURINDER KAUR

¶25

accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.25,48,494.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Lac Forty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Four Only), with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts 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 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. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 07.08.2026 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:23.07.2026

¶28

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

State Bank of India v. Smt. Surinder Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Smt. Surinder Kaur

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sh. Amarjit Singh and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Amrinder Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus M/S Sandeep Dairy Farm and Another

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Bansal Industries and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Jasvir Singh

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Hardeep Singh