Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Gurlal Singh Khehra

DRT18 Sept 2024OA/991/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of an outstanding education loan of Rs.24,74,858.36 p against the defendants, permitting recovery via mortgage sale or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.24,74,858.36 p with interest allowed; liability joint and several; recovery via sale of mortgaged property or personal assets; Recovery Certificate issued.

Punjab National Bank versus Gurlal Singh Khehra — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 991 of 2022 Date of Institution: 12.05.2022 Date of Decision: 18.09.2024 Punjab National Bank, having its branch office at different places including one at Village Jail Road, Amritsar, Punjab. ……..Applicant Vs. 1. Gurlal Singh Khehra S/o Dalbir Singh Khehra 2. Dalbir Singh Khehra S/o Bakhshish Singh 3. Kuljit Kaur W/o Dalbir Singh Khehra All R/o # 2 B, Palm Groove, Airport Road, Amritsar, Punjab. ……….Defendants

¶4

Advocates Sh. Ankit Kaushal, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants- Ex parte. OA for the Recovery of Rs.24,74,858.36p with interest @11.10% per annum with monthly rests from 01.05.2022. ORDER 1. Punjab National 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.24,74,858.36p with interest against Gurlal Singh Khehra And Others (defendants). 2. Bank’s case is that on 24.08.2016, it had granted Term Loan (Education Loan) of Rs.25.00 lacs to defendants for Education purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant no.3 had mortgaged her immovable property (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @11.30% per annum with monthly rests. On 30.04.2022, a sum of Rs.24,74,858.36p was due from the defendants.

¶5

¶6

Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶7

On 18.06.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 03.03.2023, they were proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Harpreet Singh, Authorized Representative along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A- 11. 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.25.00 lacs and on 30.04.2022, a sum of Rs.24,74,858.36p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.24,74,858.36p (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Eight And Paisa Thirty Six Only) with interest @11.10% per annum with monthly rests from 01.05.2022, 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 property, fully detailed in para No.3A 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 21.10.2024 , who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage property as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act .

¶8

¶9

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: 18.09.2024 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

Punjab National Bank v. Gurlal Singh Khehra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Gurlal Singh Khehra

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

Mujeeb Rahman v K versus Manjeri Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.

Abdul Kareem Haji Keyath versus Manjeri Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Natubhai

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Maa Jagdamba Traders

Axis Bank versus Sh. Navneet Gulati

Uco Bank versus M/S Dreams Plus Consulting Pvt. Ltd.