Allowed

Indian Bank v. Mr Vikrant Bhopal

DRT13 Mar 2025OA/1396/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Indian Bank for recovery of Rs. 1.16 crores as principal and interest against two defendants, confirming the loan advance and due amount before directing recovery certificate issuance and asset sale.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 1,16,90,268.47 with interest allowed; recovery certificate issued; parties directed to appear before Recovery Officer for distribution of sale proceeds.

Indian Bank versus Mr Vikrant Bhopal — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1396/2022 Date of Institution: 08.07.2022 Date of Decision: 13.03.2025

¶4

Indian Bank (erstwhile Allahabad Bank) having its branches all over India and a branch at Maqsudan Branch, G.T. Road, Ravidass Nagar, Maqsudan, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

Mr. Vikrant Bhopal s/o Sh. Swaran Bhopal, r/o 50, Shanti Vihar, Maqsudan, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶7

Mr. Sukhwinder Pal s/o Sh. Haridass, r/o VPO Nussi, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶8

……….Defendants

¶9

Advocates

¶10

Ms.Ritika Kansal proxy for Sh.SN Sharma, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶11

Defendants- ex parte .

¶12

OA for the Recovery of Rs.1,16,90,268.47p with interest @9.30% per annum with yearly rests from 08.07.2022.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Indian 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.1,16,90,268.47p with interest against Mr. Vikrant Bhopal and another (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 07.06.2014, it had granted a loan of Rs.75.00 Lacs to Defendant No.1 in the form of K.C.C Limit, for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant

¶16

¶17

No.2 stood as guarantor. The loan was chargeable to interest @9.30% per annum with yearly rests. On 26.06.2022, a sum of Rs.1,16,90,268.47p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶18

On 16.08.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 16.08.2023, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶19

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Rahul Jindal, Senior Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-18.

¶20

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.75.00 Lacs and on 26.06.2022, a sum of Rs.1,16,90,268.47p was due.

¶21

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.1,16,90,268.47p (Rupees One Crore Sixteen Lacs Ninety Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Eight and Forty Seven Paise Only) with interest @9.30% per annum with yearly rests from 08.07.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of both the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶22

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶23

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶24

¶25

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 14.04.2025, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged 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: 13.03.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

Indian Bank v. Mr Vikrant Bhopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Mr Vikrant Bhopal

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Royal Ventures

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Apd Fashion Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) versus M/S Shree Krishna Traders

Prabhat Kumar versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Paramjit Kaur

State Bank of India versus Promila Jain