Allowed

Yes Bank Ltd. v. Sh. Najar Singh and Others

DRT27 Nov 2025OA/1127/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Yes Bank Ltd. filed an original application to recover a loan of Rs. 38,95,909.48 p from three respondents. Absent the defendants, the DR adjudged that the bank proved its case through documentary evidence and allowed recovery of the principal, interests at 8% p.a., costs, and enforcement via sale of mortgaged assets under SARFAESI provisions.

What did the court decide?

Declared respondents liable to pay Rs. 38,95,909.48 p with costs and simple interest at 8% p.a.; authorized recovery via sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties or attachment of personal assets.

Yes Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Najar Singh and Others — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1127/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 31.07.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 27.11.2025

¶6

Yes Bank Ltd. Ltd. Registered Office at Yes Bank House, Off Western Express Highway, Santacurz (E) Mumbai-400055 having Northern Regional Corporate Office at SCO 129-130, Madhya Marg, Sector-9 C, Chandigarh and having Its Branch Office at Nabha, District Patiala Through its Attorney Holder Sh. Aashiv Bhayana.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Najar Singh S/o Sh. Pritam Singh, R/o Rohti Basta Singh, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala-147201

¶10

Smt. Jaspal Kaur W/o Sh. Najar Singh, R/o Rohti Basta Singh, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala-147201

¶11

Sh. Manjit Singh S/o Sh. Najar Singh, R/o Rohti Basta Singh, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala-14720 1.

¶12

……. Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Amit Rishi, Advocate for applicant

¶15

Defendants already ex-parte

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.38,95,909.48p (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Nine Hundred Nine and Paise Forty Eight Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Aashiv Bhayana , Authorized Representative of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 28.03.2025, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶18

2 OA NO. 1127/2025 YES BANK LTD VS SH.NAJAR SINGH AND OTHERS

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants had approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.31.00 Lacs and Over Draft Limit of Rs.8.00 Lacs vide loan application dated 05.07.2019, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶20

The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.30.22 Lacs and OD Limit of Rs.7.20 Lacs vide Sanction letter dated 23.08.2019, which is Annexure A3 to this OA.

¶21

Defendant no. 1 had mortgaged his immovable properties i.e. Land measuring 33B-12B (7acres) situated at Village Mehas, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4(1) dated 29.08.2019, which is Annexure A6 to this OA. Documents executed :- Agreement for cash credit/overdraft facility cum hypothecation cum guarantee for CC and Agreement for drop line overdraft cum guarantee cum hypothecation for DOD, both dated 23.08.2019, which are Annexures A5 & A6 to this OA; Demand Notice dated 19.07.2025 along with Postal Receipts, which is Annexur e A7 to this OA and Account Statement, which are Annexures A8 & A9 to this OA.

¶22

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.38,95,909.48p, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 24.11.2025. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Aashiv Bhayana, Authorized Representative, Yes Bank Ltd., h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶23

3 OA NO. 1127/2025 YES BANK LTD VS SH.NAJAR SINGH AND OTHERS

¶24

It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A9 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.38,95,909.48p (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Nine Hundred Nine and Paise Forty Eight Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶25

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @12.50%p.a. in both accounts with half yearly rests from 01.04.2025 till the realization.

¶26

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property/hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶27

4 OA NO. 1127/2025 YES BANK LTD VS SH.NAJAR SINGH AND OTHERS

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.38,95,909.48p (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Nine Hundred Nine and Paise Forty Eight Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 06.12.2025. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 27.11.2025. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Yes Bank Ltd. v. Sh. Najar Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank Ltd. v. Sh. Najar Singh and Others

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

Yes Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Vipin Sharma

Yes Bank Limited versus Puri Bath Care and another

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Ram Tirath Singh Alias Tirath Singh Alias Ram Tirath Singh Kang

Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited versus Multani Oil Mills and Others

State Bank of India versus Govardhan Wire Industries and Another

Central Bank of India versus M/S Nha Enterprises and Others