Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sh. Bachittar Singh

DRT29 Apr 2026OA/1012/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed Canara Bank's application for recovery of Rs. 22,39,020.13 from Sh. Bachittar Singh who failed to repay agricultural loans. The order allowed recovery via sale of mortgaged land and other properties, directing a specific distribution mechanism.

What did the court decide?

Application for recovery of Rs. 22,39,020.13 with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; Recovery Officer directed to distribute sale proceeds.

Canara Bank versus Sh. Bachittar Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER OA No: 1012/2024 Date of Institution: 05.07.2024 Date of Decision: 29.04.2026 Canara Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Ferozepur, District Ferozepur, Punjab. ……..Applicant Vs. Sh. Bachittar Singh s/o Sh. Surjit Singh, r/o H.No.44, Village Sabu Ana Langiana, Tehsil & District Ferozepur, Punjab. ……….Defendant Advocates Sh. PK Arora, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendant- ex parte vide order dated 12.02.2025 . OA for the Recovery of ₹22,39,020.13p with interest @11.05% with half-yearly rests from 05.07.2024.

¶3

ORDER

¶4

Canara Bank has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹22,39,020.13p with interest against Sh. Bachittar Singh (defendant).

¶5

Bank’s case is that on 16.07.2016, it had granted a loan of ₹15.00 Lacs 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). Again on 15.07.2020, at the request of the defendant, bank granted a loan of ₹50,000/- to the defendant in the form of Kisan Tatkal Limit for agricultural purpose. Both the loan facilities were chargeable at different rates of interest. Defendant had duly acknowledged his liability towards the debt on 18.06.2019,

¶6

¶7

04.02.2022, 14.07.2023 and 22.12.2023. On 31.03.2024, a sum of ₹22,39,020.13p was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application. 3. On 29.07.2024, summons was sent to the defendant by registered
post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in
appearance. Vide order dated 12.02.2025, he was proceeded_ex parte_.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the
affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Senior Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-14.
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
₹15.50 Lacs (₹15.00 Lacs in K.C.C. Limit; ₹50,000/- in Kisan Tatkal
Limit) and on 31.03.2024, a sum of ₹22,39,020.13p was due.
6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of
₹22,39,020.13p (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Thirty Nine Thousand
Twenty and Paise Thirteen Only) with interest @11.05% with half-
yearly rests from 05.07.2024, 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
03.06.2026,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.

¶8

¶9

A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the party. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 29.04.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Canara Bank v. Sh. Bachittar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sh. Bachittar 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

Uco Bank versus Manpreet Kumar

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus M/S Prasad Broom Stick Co. and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Muni Royal

Nawal Singh Verma versus Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Ms Shiddi Sai Traders Prop Sujata Ghatraj and Anr.

M/S Linsa Medicals versus State Bank of India