Allowed

State Bank of India v. Fatima Begum

DRT18 Jul 2026TA/327/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank's application for recovery of Rs.35,98,315.19p due from a defendant who had failed to repay Credit Card, Commercial Vehicle, and GECL loans. The court issued a Recovery Certificate and directed future appearance before the Recovery Officer.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of recovery application for Rs.35,98,315.19p with interest; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Fatima Begum — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 327/2023 Date of Institution: 08.02.2023 Date of Decision: 18.07.2026

¶4

SBI, B/u Rohama, District Baramulla.

¶5

...Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Fatima Begum D/o Abdul Subhan Bhat R/o Khushal Mohalla, Rohama, Baramulla.

¶8

...Defendants

¶9

Advocates

¶10

Ms. Lovedeep Kaur, proxy Counsel for Ms. Puja Sharma, Counsel for the Applicant Bank (on VC). Defendants – ex parte.

¶11

TA for the Recovery of Rs.35,98,315.19p with interest @10.40% per annum with monthly rests from 08.02.2023.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

On 08.02.2023, SBI (Bank) filed the suit for the recovery of Rs.35,98,315.19p with interest against Ms. Fatima Begum (defendant) in the Court of Principal District Judge, Baramulla. However, vide order dated 22.11.2023, this suit was transferred by the Court of Principal District Judge, Baramulla, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶14

Bank’s case is that on 03.05.2019, it had sanctioned a Credit Card of Rs.1 lac to the defendant for agricultural credit under the Kisan Credit Card (KCC) Scheme. On 07.05.2019, Bank had granted a Commercial Vehicle Loan facility of Rs.30 lacs to the defendant for business purpose. The Commercial Vehicle Loan facility was chargeable to interest @11.55% per annum with monthly rests. Again, on 15.06.2020, bank had granted a GECL Loan of Rs.5.77 lacs to the defendant for further financial assistance. The GECL Loan facility was chargeable to interest @9.25% per annum with monthly rests. To secure the credit facilities,

¶15

¶16

defendant had hypothecated her assets (Hypothecation Agreements attached to the plaint as Annexures C, L and P). On 20.12.2022, a sum of Rs.35,98,315.19p was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this suit.

¶17

On 27.11.2024, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 25.04.2025, she was proceeded ex parte.

¶18

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Maroofa Shah, Assistant General Manager SARB Srinagar, along with the loan and original security documents.

¶19

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 a Credit Card facility (KCC Loan facility) of Rs.1 lac; a Commercial Vehicle Loan facility of Rs.30 lacs and a GECL Loan facility of Rs.5.77 lacs to the defendant and on 20.12.2022, a sum of Rs.35,98,315.19p (KCC Loan: Rs.1,11,021.69p; Commercial Vehicle Loan: 29,64,667.80p and GECL Loan: Rs.5,22,625.70p) was due.

¶20

Accordingly, the application of the Bank for the recovery of Rs.35,98,315.19p (Rupees Thirty-Five Lacs Ninety-Eight Thousand Three Hundred Fifteen and Paise Nineteen Only) with interest @10.40% per annum with monthly rests from 08.02.2023, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of the hypothecated assets (Hypothecation Agreements attached to the plaint as Annexures C, L and P), as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant.

¶21

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶22

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶23

¶24

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 18.08.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act .

¶25

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

¶26

Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 18.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶27

HARSH

State Bank of India v. Fatima Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Fatima Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Venkateshappa S N and Others

Bank of India versus Muniyamma

Canara Bank versus Kamalamma

State Bank of India versus M/S Shree Udyog

Nanna Kuraisi versus Aadhar Housing Finance Limited

Uv Arc Ltd. (Icici Bank Limited) versus M/S De Bono Flexcom India Ltd. and Ors.