Allowed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Shri Ranjodh Singh

DRT27 Nov 2024OA/1565/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of Rs.53,64,112.63 plus interest against the defendants joint and severally, based on unchallenged evidence of an agricultural loan.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.53,64,112.63 with interest allowed; liability joint and several; recovery from mortgaged and personal property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Shri Ranjodh… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1565 of 2022

¶4

Date of Institution: 30.07.2022 Date of Decision: 27.11.2024

¶5

Kotal Mahindra Bank (erstwhile ING Vyasa Bank), having its Branch Office at SCO-153-154-155, Basement, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Shri Ranjodh Singh son of Shri Harbhajan Singh, resident of H. No. 24, village Sheron, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran, Punjab-143401.

¶9

Shri Kewal Singh son of Shri Harbhajan Singh, resident of H. No. 85, village Sairo, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar, Punjab143401.

¶10

Shri Harjinder Singh son of Shri Mejar Singh, resident of H. No. 85, village Chambal, Tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar, Punjab-143401.

¶11

……….Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Adv. Rajan Puri, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants ex parte .

¶14

OA for the Recovery of Rs.53,64,112.63p with interest @ 12% per annum with half yearly rests from the date of filing.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Kotal Mahindra Bank (erstwhile ING Vyasa Bank) (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.53,64,112.63p with interest against Shri Ranjodh Singh and others (defendants).

¶17

¶18

Bank’s case is that on 22.01.2015, it had granted KCC Limit of Rs.45.00 lacs to the defendant No.1 and 2 for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 and 2 had mortgaged their agricultural land, fully detailed in para No. 5(vi) of the application. Defendant No.3 had stood guarantor for the said loan. The loan was chargeable to interest @ 12% per annum with half yearly rests. Defendants did not make the payment as per the repayment schedule. On 30.06.2022, a sum of Rs.53,64,112.63p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶19

On 22.08.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 25.04.2023, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶20

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Munish Sharma, Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-15. 5. 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 the loan of Rs.45.00 lacs and on 30.06.2022 a sum of Rs.53,64,112.63p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.53,64,112.63p (Rupees Fifty Three Lacs Sixty Four Thousand One Hundred Twelve and Sixty Three paisa only) with interest @ 12 % per annum with half yearly rests from the date of filing, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property fully detailed in para No.5(vi) of the application as

¶21

¶22

well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶23

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 27.12.2024, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage property and standing crops 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) Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶24

Manoj Dated: 27.11.2024

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Shri Ranjodh Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Shri Ranjodh 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

Similar cases

Mr Beeran Ali versus South Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus Kamlesh Kumari

Hdfc Bank versus Bhavani Enterprise

Sri Ram Prakash Sahani versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus M/S C.V. Mart

Mohammed Shafi versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited