Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Jai Kabir Traders

DRT18 Jun 2026TA/14/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a request for recovery of debt, the DRT held the applicant bank proved its case regarding a limited credit facility. The court allowed the recovery suit against the proprietor and proprietor concern, ordering issuance of a Recovery Certificate and mandatory appearance before the Recovery Officer.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹55,16,917/- with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; joint and several liability enforced.

State Bank of India versus M/S Jai Kabir Traders — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 14/2023 Date of Institution: 27.03.2021 Date of Decision: 18.06.2026

¶4

SBI having its branches all over India and a branch office at SARB, Jammu.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Jai Kabir Traders situated at Dhiansar Morh, Kartholi, Tehsil Bari Brahmana, District Samba, a proprietor concern of Tarsem Lal s/o Sh. Chain Singh, r/o Dhiansar Morh, Kartholi, Tehsil Bari Brahmana, District Samba.

¶8

Tarsem Lal s/o Chain Singh, r/o Dhiansar Morh, Kartholi, Tehsil Bari Brahmana, District Samba.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Mr. Vipul Dharmani proxy counsel for Sh. Gaurav Singla, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶12

Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 10.05.2024 .

¶13

TA for the Recovery of ₹55,16,917/- with interest @14.15% per annum with monthly rests from 27.03.2021.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

On 27.03.2021, SBI, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹55,16,917/with interest against M/s Jai Kabir Traders and another (defendants) in the Court of Principal District Judge, Samba. However, vide order dated 26.09.2022, this suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Jammu and Kashmir, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 02.11.1995, it had granted C.C. Limit of ₹1.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 for business purpose. At the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the C.C. Limit from time to time over the years and lastly on 29.03.2010, at ₹42.00 Lacs. To secure the loan, Defendant No.2 had mortgaged his

¶17

¶18

property (fully detailed in para No.4 and 12 of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @14.15% per annum with monthly rests. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards debt on 31.05.2016 and 15.06.2016. On 25.03.2021, a sum of ₹55,16,917/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.

¶19

The Civil Court sent summonses to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. After transfer, summonses were sent to the defendants which were duly served. However, they did not put in appearance and were proceeded ex parte on 10.05.2024.

¶20

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Rajender Koul, Deputy Manager, along with the original loan and security documents.

¶21

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 loan of ₹42.00 Lacs (enhanced from ₹1.00 Lacs) and on 25.03.2021, a sum of ₹55,16,917/- was due.

¶22

Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹55,16,917/(Rupees Fifty Five Lacs Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred Seventeen Only) with interest @14.15% per annum with monthly rests from 27.03.2021, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of both the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property(ies) fully detailed in para Nos.4 and 12 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶23

¶24

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 20.07.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property(ies) and hypothecated assets as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 18.06.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

State Bank of India v. M/S Jai Kabir Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Jai Kabir Traders

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

Mr Sandeep Mandal versus Punjab National Bank

Ms Talukdar Pharmacy versus Axis Bank

Shadab Akhtar Abdul Shakil versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Mohd Rizwan

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Allied Protection and Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Pawan Kumar Sinhal versus Indian Bank