Allowed

Bank of India v. Sh. Manjit Singh

DRT18 Nov 2024OA/374/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 21,52,886/- along with interest against two respondents, declaring their liability as joint and several and directing issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 21,52,886/- with interest is allowed; liability declared joint and several; Recovery Certificate directed to be issued.

Bank of India versus Sh. Manjit Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 374/2022

¶4

Date of Institution: 28.01.2022 Date of Decision: 18.11.2024

¶5

Bank of India, one of its Branches at Sutlej Market, Police Lines Road, Jalandhar City.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

¶8

Sh. Manjit Singh S/o Sh. Gurmail Singh, R/o Village Budhiana, Tehsil and District Jalandhar.

¶9

Sh. Satnam Singh S/o Sh. Pal Singh, R/o Village Budhiana, Tehsil and District Jalandhar.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh. KPS Dhillon, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants – ex parte

¶13

OA for the Recovery of Rs.21,52,886/- with interest @9.90% per annum with half yearly rests from 28.01.2022.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Bank of India, (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.21,52,886/- with interest against Sh. Manjit Singh and another (defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 30.06.2011, it had granted a loan of Rs.15.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 in the form of C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. Defendant No.2 had stood guarantor. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.3(A) of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @13.25% per annum with half yearly rests. On 28.01.2022, a sum of Rs.21,52,886/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶17

On 14.03.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not

¶18

¶19

put in appearance. Vide order dated 03.10.2023, they were proceeded_ex_ parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the
affidavit of Mr. Anil Kumar Gera, Chief Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-19.
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.15.00 Lacs and on 28.01.2022, a sum of Rs.21,52,886/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of
Rs.21,52,886/- (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Eight
Hundred and Eighty Six Only) with interest @9.90% per annum with half yearly rests from 28.01.2022, 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 land fully
detailed in para No.3(A) 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.
9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on
19.12.2024,who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the
mortgage land 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) Dated: 18.11.2024 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh Pankaj

Bank of India v. Sh. Manjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Sh. Manjit 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

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Rajpal Rana

Canara Bank versus Kamal Singh Jaitwal

Punjab National Bank (E-Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus M/S Prayagraj Sweets

M/S Pisces Industries versus State Bank of India

Ms S J Construction through Its Prop Parvez Sayyad Farid Razvi versus Gandhibagh Sahakari Bank Ltd. Nagpur

Mr Sabah Azeez versus Bank of India