Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Malkit Singh

DRT28 Apr 2026OA/1003/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT-I Chandigarh allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of dues. The tribunal held that the bank proved the loan liability and directed the realization of amounts from mortgaged land and other assets of the joint and several liable defendants.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹60,78,344 with interest allowed; liability is joint and several; Recovery Certificate issued; proceedings on mortgaged land directed.

Hdfc Bank versus Malkit Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1003/2022 Date of Institution: 17.05.2022 Date of Decision: 28.04.2026

¶4

HDFC Bank Limited having its branches all over India and a branch at Malsian Branch, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Malkit Singh s/o Sh. Gurmail Singh, r/o Village Patti Haweli Malsian, Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶8

Gurmail Singh s/o Sh. Sohan Singh, r/o Village Patti Haweli Malsian, Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶9

Satnam Singh s/o Sh. Mukhtiar Singh, r/o Village Patti Haweli Malsian, Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh. Anup Prajapati proxy counsel for Sh. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶13

Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 21.03.2024 .

¶14

OA for the Recovery of ₹60,78,344/- with interest @10.25% per annum with half-yearly rests from 17.05.2022.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

HDFC Bank Limited has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹60,78,344/- with interest against Sh. Malkit Singh and others (defendants).

¶17

Bank’s case is that on 16.02.2016, it had granted a loan of ₹45.00 Lacs to defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.2 had mortgaged his agricultural land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant No.3 stood as guarantor vide guarantee agreement dated

¶18

¶19

26.02.2016. Again on 24.03.2017, at the request of the defendants, applicant bank enhanced the existing Limit from ₹45.00 Lacs to ₹47.95Lacs. The loan was chargeable to interest @10.25% per annum with half-yearly rests. On 15.01.2022, a sum of ₹60,78,344/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶20

On 10.06.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 21.03.2024, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶21

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Harminder Pal Singh, Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-14.

¶22

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 ₹47.95 Lacs (enhanced from ₹45.00 Lacs) and on 15.01.2022, a sum of ₹60,78,344/- was due.

¶23

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹60,78,344/- (Rupees Sixty Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Three Hundred Forty Four Only) with interest @10.25% per annum with halfyearly rests from 17.05.2022, 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.

¶24

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶25

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶26

¶27

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 01.06.2026, 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 parties. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 28.04.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Hdfc Bank v. Malkit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Malkit 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

Punjab National Bank versus Radhey Shyam Trading Company

Mr Prakash Shankar Naidu versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S Babbar Brothers HUF

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Mir Decorations

West Bengal Gramin Bank versus Mr. Amal Paul Prop. of Shibnath Marketing @ Mr Amal Pal and Anr.

Bank of Baroda versus Asha M R