Allowed

Bank of India v. Sh. Karnail Singh and Others

DRT25 Feb 2026OA/1011/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the Bank of India's application for recovery of a dues of Rs.67.30 Lakhs against borrowers and guarantors, granting uniform simple interest at 8% p.a. and directing issuance of a Recovery Certificate for execution.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of liability to pay Rs.67,30,407.97 with interest @8% p.a.; order to issue Recovery Certificate under SARFAESI Act for enforcement.

Bank of India versus Sh. Karnail Singh and Others — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1011/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 09.07.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 25.02.2026

¶6

Bank of India, a body corporate and a Nationalized Bank under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act of 1970, with its H.O. at Bank of India, Star House, C-5, G Block, Bandra Kurla, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051 and amongst others a branch at Village Mandaur, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, Punjab through Sh. Ajay Singh, working as Chief Manager, Principal Officer and General Attorney at Zonal Office Ludhiana, District Ludhiana.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Karnail Singh S/o Sh. Kartar Singh, R/o Village Agol, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala

¶10

Sh. Kaka Singh S/o Sh. Kartar Singh, R/o Village Agol, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala

¶11

Sh. Gurdeep Singh S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, R/o Village Kishangarh, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala

¶12

…….Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Gaurav Tapra, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rajeev Kumar Pasricha, Advocate for the applicant

¶15

Defendants already ex parte dated 09.01.2026

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

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.67,30,407.97 (Rupees Sixty Seven Lacs Thirty Thousand Four Hundred Seven and Paise Ninety Seven Only). The Original Application has been filed through Mr. Ajay Sing h, Chief Manager of the applicant who is competent to institute the

¶18

2 OA/1011/2025 BANK OF INDIA VS. KARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS

¶19

Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 20.01.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no.1 approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.30.00 Lacs vide loan application dated 22.07.2014, which is Annexures A2 to this OA. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 stood as guarantor.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.30.00 Lacs vide Sanction letter dated 28.07.2014, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant No.1 mortgaged their immovable property i.e. Total agricultural land measuring 44Bighe-02Biswa situated at Village Agol, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, Punjab vide mortgage deed bearing vasika no. 1543 dated 30.07.2014, along with its translation, which is Annexure A10 to this OA.

¶22

Documents executed: DP Note, Hypothecation cum loan agreement, Letter of Declaration undertaking & authority, Declaration obtained from borrower, Agreement, Deed of guarantee executed by defendant Nos. 2 & 3, all dated 04.08.2014 which are Annexures A4 to A9 to this OA; Acknowledgements of Debts & Securities dated 15.06.2016, 28.09.2018, 24.09.2021 and 07.08.2023, which are Annexures A11 to A14 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 13.05.2025, along with postal receipt, which is Annexure A15 to this OA; Account statement which is Annexure A16 to this OA. 5. 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.67,30,407.97 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. 6. The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09.01.2026.

¶23

3 OA/1011/2025 BANK OF INDIA VS. KARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS

¶24

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Ajay Singh, Chief Manager, Bank of India has been filed.

¶25

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶26

It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted,

¶27

the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A16 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 bank. 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.67,30,407.97 (Rupees Sixty Seven Lacs Thirty Thousand Four Hundred Seven and Paise Ninety Seven 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.

¶28

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @13.50% p.a. plus 2% penal interest with half yearly rests from 10.05.2025 till the realization.

¶29

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. the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till

¶30

¶31

OA/1011/2025

¶32

BANK OF INDIA VS. KARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS

¶33

realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶34

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.67,30,407.97 (Rupees Sixty Seven Lacs Thirty Thousand Four Hundred Seven and Paise Ninety Seven Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan accounts 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 assets/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.

¶35

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶36

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 12.03.2026.

¶38

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.

¶39

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal. Dated: 25.02.2026.

¶40

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

Bank of India v. Sh. Karnail Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Sh. Karnail Singh and Others

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

Bank of India versus Sudeep Singh and Others

Reena versus Cent Bank Home Finance Limited

Ms Laavin Polymers and Others versus Punjab National Bank

Indian Bank versus Sh. Harbhajan Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Balvir Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Harjinder Singh and Others