Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Tarsem Singh

DRT22 Jul 2025OA/798/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Punjab National Bank for the recovery of Rs. 43,21,320/- with interest from the defendant, Tarsem Singh, following an ex parte proceeding due to the defendant's non-appearance.

What did the court decide?

The application for recovery of Rs.43,21,320/- with interest @11.60% per annum from 14.03.2022 till the date of payment was allowed with costs.

Punjab National Bank versus Tarsem Singh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 798 of 2022 Date of Institution: 14.03.2022 Date of Decision: 22.07.2025

¶4

Punjab National Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at VPO Tanda, Urmar, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

Tarsem Singh s/o Amar Singh, H.no. 1169, Village Dasuya, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

¶7

……….Defendant

¶8

Advocates

¶9

Sh. Gulshan Mehta, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendant - ex parte .

¶10

OA for the Recovery of Rs.43,21,320/- with interest @11.60% per annum with yearly rests from 14.03.2022.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Punjab National 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.43,21,320/- with interest against Tarsem Singh (defendant).

¶13

Bank’s case is that on 29.06.2015, it had granted a loan of Rs.50.00Lacs to defendant in the form of K.C.C. Limit for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para no.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @11.60% per annum with yearly rests. On 30.09.2021, a sum of Rs.43,21,320/- was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶14

¶15

On 19.05.2022, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 23.12.2022, he was proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Kartaran Singh, Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-7. 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 Rs.50.00 Lacs and on 30.09.2021, a sum of Rs.43,21,320/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.43,21,320/- (Rupees Forty Three Lacs Twenty One Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Only) with interest @11.60% per annum with yearly rests from 14.03.2022, 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. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Party is directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 28.08.2025, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property(ies) and standing crops as per the provisions of Section 19(20AB) of the Act .

¶16

10. A Copy of this order along with Recov	ery Certificate be sent to the
Recovery Officer as well as the party.
Pronounced in the open Court. Dated: 22.07.2025	(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh
Amanpreet (Law Researcher)

Punjab National Bank v. Tarsem Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Tarsem 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harjit Kaur versus Hdfc Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Dahikar Automobile,through Its Proprietor, Shri Sachin S/O. Vijay Dahikar

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sanjay Kumar

Mrs Sangita Biswas versus Bank of Baroda

Sri Binod Kumar Gupta Proprietor of M S Shiv Shakti Enterprise versus Indian Bank

Shri Rajesh Kumar son of Late Shri Rehaman versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited