Allowed

Bank of India v. Paramjit Singh and another

DRT17 Dec 2025OA/2058/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank of India filed an original application to recover a loan of Rs. 27.22 lakhs from Para 1 and 2 as secured mortgage and guarantor. The defendants failed to appear. The Tribunal allowed the application, directed recovery of the principal with simple interest at 8% per annum, and authorized recovery from mortgaged and personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs. 27,22,028.20 with 8% simple interest; recovery from sale of mortgaged and personal assets; Recovery Certificate issued.

Bank of India versus Paramjit Singh and another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.2058/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 16.12.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 17.12.2025

¶6

Bank of India, a body corporate constitute under the banking companies, (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act No. V of 1970 having its Head Office at “Star House” C-5, Block-G, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai-400051 and branch office amongst others places at Jagraon, District Ludhiana, through its duly constituted attorney Sh. Ved Prakash, Chief Manager, Raikot Branch.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Paramjit Singh, Son of Sh. Major Singh, R/o Village Sardarpura, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, Punjab.

¶10

Sh. Amandeep Singh Son of Sh. Jaswant Singh R/o House No.35, Village Sardarpura, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, Punjab.

¶11

….……Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Ms. Lovedeep Kaur, Advocate proxy for Ms. Puja Sharma, Advocate for the applicant

¶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. 27,22,028.20 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Twenty Two Thousand Twenty Eight & Paise Twenty only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Ved Prakash, Chief Manager, of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 13.12.2019, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs. 15.00 Lacs

¶18

¶19

OA NO. 2058/2022 BANK OF INDIA VS. PARAMJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶20

vide Loan Application dated 10.08.2012 which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs. 15.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 17.09.2012 which is Annexure A4 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no. 1had mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land measuring 26K-19M situated at Village Sidhwan Bet, Tehsil & District Jagraon, Punjab vide Mortgage Deed bearing vasika no. 931 dated 10.09.2012, along with its translations, which are Annexures A8, A8T to this OA.

¶22

Documents executed :- Voter ID of defendants in file 3, which is Annexure A3 to his OA; DP Note, Hypothecation cum loan agreement, Deed of guarantee, Letter of deceleration, Undertaking & Authority, Agreement all dated 17.09.2012, which are Annexure A5 to A7, A9 & A10 to this OA; Acknowledgement of debt dated 08.04.2015, 07.04.2018, 12.12.2019, which are Annexures A11 to A13 to this OA; Legal notice dated 03.06.2019, 05.09.2019, 25.08.2021 & 10.08.2022, which are Annexures A14 to A17 to this OA and Statement of account, which is Annexure A18 to this OA.

¶23

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.27,22,028.20, 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.

¶24

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 08.08.2025.

¶25

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Ved Prakash, Chief Manager, Bank for India, has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶26

¶27

OA NO. 2058/2022 BANK OF INDIA VS. PARAMJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶28

It was argued by learned proxy 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 A18 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. 27,22,028.20 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Twenty Two Thousand Twenty Eight & Paise Twenty 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.

¶29

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @10.30%p.a. with 2% penal interest with half yearly rests from 09.12.2022 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/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 @8.00%p.a. in 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.

¶31

¶32

OA NO. 2058/2022 BANK OF INDIA VS. PARAMJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶33

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs. 27,22,028.20 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Twenty Two Thousand Twenty Eight & Paise Twenty 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.

¶34

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of .

¶35

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 30.12.2025. 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: 17.12.2025.

¶36

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Bank of India v. Paramjit Singh and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Paramjit Singh and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S Green Flames Bioenergy Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Kamaljeet Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Ravi sharda

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Anmol Tyres and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Khushwinder Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Amarjit Singh