Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sh Amritpal Singh

DRT30 Jan 2025OA/2006/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Debts Recovery Tribunal order, the Presiding Officer allowed Canara Bank's application for recovery of Rs.25,54,337.27 plus interest from two defendants who failed to repay an agricultural KCC loan. The bank proved its case via affidavit despite defendants' ex parte status. The court directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate and distribution of sale proceeds from mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.25,54,337.27 with interest @10% per annum; issuance of Recovery Certificate; sale of mortgaged property.

Canara Bank versus Sh Amritpal Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 2006 of 2022 Date of Institution: 30.09.2022 Date of Decision: 30.01.2025

¶4

Canara Bank, having its Branch Office at Basra Complex Pathankot bypass Chowk, Jalandhar-Amritsar GT Road, District Jalandahr, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Shri Amritpal Singh son of Manjit Singh, resident of Village Tandi, Tehsil Bhogpur, District Jalandhar,Punjab-144001.

¶8

Shri Manjit Singh son of Shri Swaran Singh, resident of Village Tandi, Tehsil Bhogpur, District Jalandhar,Punjab-144001.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates:

¶11

Ms.Seeerat Sharma proxy for Sh.Neeraj Madan, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants ex parte.

¶12

OA for the Recovery of Rs.25,54,337.27p with interest @ 10% per annum with half yearly rests from the date of filing.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Canara 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.25,54,337.27p with interest against Shri Amritpal Singh and another (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 26.10.2012, it had granted KCC Limit of Rs.10 lacs to defendants for agricultural purpose, which was duly enhanced from time to time upto Rs.15 lacs. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.3(A) of the application). Defendant No.2 had stood guarantor for the said loan. Defendants also executed all the relevant loan documents. The

¶16

¶17

loan was chargeable to interest @ 10% per annum with half yearly rests. Defendants did not make the payment as per the repayment schedule. On 31.03.2022, a sum of Rs.25,54,337.27p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶18

On 19.10.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 10.05.2023, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶19

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Senior Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A- 17.

¶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.15,00,000/- and on 31.03.2022 a sum of Rs.25,54,337.27p was due.

¶21

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.25,54,337.27p (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Fifty Four Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Seven and Twenty Seven Paisa Only) with interest @10% per annum with half yearly 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.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 04.03.2025, 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 Manoj Dated: 30.01.2025

Canara Bank v. Sh Amritpal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sh Amritpal 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

Mani versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Shree Ganpati Logistics and Transport

Hdfc Bank Limited versus by Enterprises

ravinder kaur srivastava versus Icici Bank Limited

Shine P Jacob versus South Indian Bank

Canara Bank versus Ayam Studios Private Limited, Rep. by its Directors