Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sh. Ranjit Singh and Another

DRT10 Feb 2026OA/896/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs.20.05 lakhs. After ex-parte hearing, the court declared respondents liable, granted adjusted interest at 8% p.a., and issued a Recovery Certificate for execution.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Respondents declared liable to pay Rs.20.05 lakhs plus 8% p.a. interest; Enforcement allowed via sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.896/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 08.07.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 10.02.2026

¶6

State Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under The State Bank of India Act, 1955 having Central Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of its Local Head Office at Sector 17A, Chandigarh and one of its Branch at Circular Road, Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab through its Branch Manager Sh. Amit Kumar.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Ranjit Singh S/o Sh. Fatta Singh, R/o village Mannianwala, Tehsil Gidderbaha and District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab.

¶10

Sh. Makhan Singh S/o Sh. Fatta Singh, R/o village Mannianwala, Tehsil Gidderbaha and District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab.

¶11

…….Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Ms. Seerat, Advocate proxy for Sh. Pankaj Beri, Advocate for the applicant

¶14

Defendants already ex-parte vide order dated 08.01.2025

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.20,05,550.00 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Five Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Amit Kumar, Branch Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application in terms of Gazette Notification published in Gazette of India dated 26.09.1959, 26.08.1972 & 02.05.1987 issued under regulation no. 76 & 77 of State Bank of India Regulations framed in exercise of the

¶17

2 OA/896/2024 STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. RANJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶18

powers conferred by Sub-Section 3 of Section 50 of State Bank of India Act, 1955 with previous sanction of Central Government.

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants approached the applicant for the grant of KCC limit of Rs.11.50 Lacs vide loan application dated 18.07.2016, which is Annexure A1 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.11.50 Lacs vide Letter of Arrangement dated 28.07.2016, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendants mortgaged their immovable property i.e. 36Kanal10Marla situated at Village Mannianwala, Hadbast no. 30, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab vide declaration dated 21.07.2016 u/s 4(1) of Punjab Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1978, which is Annexure A5 to this OA.

¶20

Documents executed: Hypothecation agreement, Letter of undertaking, both dated 28.07.2016, which are Annexures A3 and A4 to this OA; Notice dated 03.07.2024 which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Statement of Account, which is Annexure A7 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.20,05,550.00 which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.01.2025. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Amit Kumar, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶21

3 OA/896/2024

¶22

STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. RANJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶23

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 A7 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.20,05,550.00 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Five Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts. 10. In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.90% p.a. plus 2% penal interest with half yearly rests from 01.07.2024 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 mortgaged property/hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendants, 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 uniform simple interest @8.00%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.

¶25

¶26

OA/896/2024

¶27

STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. RANJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.20,05,550.00 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Five Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Only), jointly and severally with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%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/mortgaged properties of the defendants 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 defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶29

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 24.02.2026. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants 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: 10.02.2026.

¶31

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

State Bank of India v. Sh. Ranjit Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sh. Ranjit Singh and Another

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

Axis Bank Limited versus Sh. Gurmukh Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhwinder Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Gurbachan Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhdeep Singh and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Kamaal Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jarnail Singh