Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Nachatar Singh Alias Nachhattar Singh and Another

DRT15 Sept 2025OA/204/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte application under the RDB Act, the Tribunal held the defendants liable to pay Rs. 23.73 Lakhs along with interest. The court exercised discretion to reduce the interest rate to 8% p.a. and directed recovery via sale of mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 23,73,387.29 jointly and severally with simple interest @8% p.a. from date of filing till realization, liable to recover from sale of mortgaged properties.

Bank of Baroda versus Nachatar Singh Alias Nachhattar Singh… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.204/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 07.02.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 15.09.2025

¶6

Bank of Baroda, a body corporate and a nationalized Bank under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act of 1970 with its Head Office at Baroda Bhawan, RC Dutt Road, Alkapuri, Baroda 390007, Gujarat and amongst others a branch at Grain Market, Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, through Sh. Ishparkash Singh, Constituted Attorney of the Applicant.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Nachatar Singh @Nachhattar Singh S/o Sh. Surat Singh @Surta Singh, resident of Village Sardarwala, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab.

¶10

Sh. Subheg Singh S/o Sh. Surat Singh, resident of Village Sardarwala, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab.

¶11

….……Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Ms. Seerat Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh. Pankaj Beri, Advocate for Applicant (through VC)

¶14

Defendants already ex parte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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.23,73,387.29P(Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Seventy Three Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Seven & Twenty Nine Paise Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Ishparkash Singh, Constituted Attorney o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 20.08.2016, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

2 OA NO.204/2025 BANK OF BARODA Vs SH.NACHATAR SINGH @ NACHHATTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no.1 was availing the facility i.e. KCC Limit of Rs. 4.00 Lacs from the applicant. He approached the applicant for enhancement of this limit to Rs. 15.00 Lacs vide loan application form dated 11.07.2016, which is Annexure A3 to this OA. Defendant no.2 stood as a Guarantor.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned the enhancement of the KCC Limit to Rs.15.00 Lacs vide sanction dated 02.08.2016, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶20

Defendant no.1 had mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land measuring 94K-17M Situated at Village Sardarwala, Hadbast No.111, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4(1) dated 26.07.2016 & Letter to Sub Registrar for Creation of Charge bearing no. 786 dated 26.07.2016, w hich is Annexure A9 to this OA. Documents executed: Amalgamation Scheme/Gazette Notification dated 02.01.2019, which is Annexure A2 to this OA; Demand Promissory note, Letter of Continuity, Hypothecation agreement for agriculture loans, Letter of guarantee, all dated 02.08.2016, which are Annexures A5 to A8 to this OA; notice dated 20.01.2025, which is Annexure A10 to this OA and Statement of account duly certified, which is Annexure A11 to this OA.

¶21

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit Rs.23,73,387.29P, 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.

¶22

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 26.08.2025.

¶23

3 OA NO.204/2025 BANK OF BARODA Vs SH.NACHATAR SINGH @ NACHHATTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶24

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Ishparkash Singh, Constituted Attorney, State Bank of India, h as been filed.

¶25

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶26

It was argued by learned Proxy counsel through Video Conferencing for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had

¶27

proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A11 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the applicant. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.23,73,387.29P (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Seventy Three Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Seven & Twenty Nine Paise Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶28

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed

¶29

[email protected]%p.a. with 2% penal interest with half yearly rests from 04.02.2025 till the realization.

¶30

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, 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 @8.00%p.a. in

¶31

4 OA NO.204/2025 BANK OF BARODA Vs SH.NACHATAR SINGH @ NACHHATTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶32

the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.23,73,387.29P (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Seventy Three Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Seven & Twenty Nine Paise Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan account 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.

¶33

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 06.10.2025. 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.

¶34

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal.
Dated: 15.09.2025.
(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)
Presiding Officer,
DRT-III, Chandigarh

Bank of Baroda v. Nachatar Singh Alias Nachhattar Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Nachatar Singh Alias Nachhattar Singh and Another

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

Indian Bank versus Sh. Parminder Singh and Others

Canara Bank versus Messrs Aarti Traders and Another

Bank of India versus Sh. Avtar Singh and Others

Yes Bank Ltd. versus Harpreet Singh

Yes Bank Ltd. versus Bupinder Singh Alias Bhinder Singh and Others

Indian Bank versus Makkar Motors and Another