Allowed

Canara Bank v. Shri Harpal Singh

DRT1 Nov 2025OA/459/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of INR 30,88,000 with interest under the RDB Act. The court found the debt proved despite the defendant defaulting and appearing ex parte, issuing a recovery certificate and directing sale of mortgaged assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.30,88,000 with interest @9.95% per annum; issuance of Recovery Certificate; direction to sell mortgaged land and personal property.

Canara Bank versus Shri Harpal Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 459/2022 Date of Institution: 07.03.2022 Date of Decision: 03.11.2025

¶4

Canara Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Majitha, Tehsil & District Amritsar, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

Sh. Harpal Singh s/o Sh. Sheetal Singh, r/o Village Bhoya Fatehgarh, Tehsil Majitha, District Amritsar, Punjab.

¶7

……….Defendant

¶8

Advocates

¶9

Sh. Satish Jaswal proxy counsel for Sh. Navdeep Singh, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendant- ex parte vide order dated 17.01.2025 . OA for the Recovery of Rs.30,88,000/- with interest @9.95% per annum with half-yearly rests from 07.03.2022. ORDER

¶10

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.30,88,000/- with interest against Sh. Harpal Singh (defendant).

¶11

Bank’s case is that on 27.06.2018, it had granted a loan of Rs.20.00 Lacs to defendant in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. On 15.11.2018, bank granted another loan of Rs.50,000/- to defendant in the form of Kisan Tatkal Loan for agricultural purpose. To secure the loans, Defendant had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @9.95% per annum with half-yearly rests. Defendant had duly acknowledged his liability towards the debt on 01.06.2021 and 12.11.2021. On 22.02.2022, a sum of Rs.30,88,000/- was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶12

¶13

On 25.03.2022, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 17.01.2025, he was proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Sahil Mahajan, Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-13. 5. 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 total loan of Rs.20.50 Lacs and on 22.02.2022, a sum of Rs.30,88,000/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.30,88,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Eighty Eight Thousand Only) with interest @9.95% per annum with half-yearly rests from 07.03.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. 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 defendant.

¶14

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Party is directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 09.12.2025, 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 party.

¶15

Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 03.11.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Canara Bank v. Shri Harpal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Shri Harpal 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

Canara Bank versus M/S Radhakrishna Automobiles Rep by Its Prop Smt.G. Suguna

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) versus Thangamma M G

State Bank of India versus M/S Machinesonhire

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Harjit Singh

Idbi Bank versus Amrik Kaur

Ms a D Textile Proprietorship firm of the Shri Anil Prakash Patel versus Tjsb Sahakari Bank