Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sukhpal Singh

DRT19 Nov 2025OA/554/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 33.31 Lakhs plus interest filed under Section 19 of the RDB Act against four defendants who failed to repay a secured agricultural loan. The court developed a recovery certificate and directed the Recovery Officer to sell the mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 33,31,538.74 with interest at 11% to 12%, issuance of Recovery Certificate, and direction to Recovery Officer to sell mortgaged property.

Hdfc Bank versus Sukhpal Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 554 of 2022 Date of Institution: 23.03.2022 Date of Decision: 19.11.2025

¶4

HDFC Bank Ltd. having its branches all over India and a branch at Lopoke, Amritsar, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

Sukhpal Singh s/o Sukhchain Singh r/o Village Kakkar, Tehsil Kakkar, District Amritsar, Punjab.

¶7

Hardial Singh s/o Sukhchain Singh r/o H.no.422 A, Kakkar Village Kakrh Habat, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, Punjab.

¶8

Sukhchain Singh s/o Anoop Singh r/o H.no.422 A, Kakkar Village Kakrh Habat, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, Punjab.

¶9

Galjar Singh s/o Baghel Singh Village H.no.41, Village Kakkad Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, Punjab.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh. Amit Rishi, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte .

¶13

OA for the Recovery of Rs.33,31,538.74p with interest from 23.03.2022.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

HDFC Bank Ltd. (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.33,31,538.74p with interest against Sh. Sukhpal Singh and others (defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 13.09.2014, it had granted a loan of Rs.23.50Lacs to Defendant nos. 1 to 3 in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant no.3 had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant no.4 stood as the guarantor. The loan was chargeable to different rates of

¶17

¶18

interest with half-yearly rests. During COVID Period, the interest accumulated in the CC Limit was converted to a separate FITL Account (Term Loan Facility). On 18.01.2022, a sum of Rs.33,31,538.74p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶19

On 20.04.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 25.04.2023, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶20

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Harminder Pal Singh, Authorised Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-10. 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 loan of under different schemes and on 18.01.2022, a sum of Rs. 33,31,538.74p was due.

¶21

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.33,31,538.74p (Rupees Thirty Three Lacs Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight and Seventy Four Paise Only) i.e. Rs.31,36,067.45p in the CC Limit with interest @12% per annum with half-yearly rests and Rs.1,95,471.29p in the Term Loan Facility with interest @11% per annum with half-yearly rests from 23.03.2022, 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 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

7. Pending IAs,	if any, stand disposed of.

¶23

¶24

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶25

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 24.12.2025, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property(ies) and standing crops as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act .

¶26

A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties.

¶27

Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 19.11.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶28

Amanpreet (Law Researcher)

Hdfc Bank v. Sukhpal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sukhpal 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

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus Sh. Jagar @Jaggar Singh @Ujjagar Singh

State Bank of India versus Manjit Kaur

Ms Supreme Briquettes versus Hdfc Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Praveen

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Harjeet Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Raja Ram Mishra