Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Manohar singh

DRT28 Jan 2026OA/1167/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi Nationalized Bank filed an Original Application to recover an NPAs. The respondent denied liability claiming signature forgery but failed to produce evidence. The court admitted documents and found the claim, modified the interest rate to 8%, and ordered issuance of a Recovery Certificate under DBT Act.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for principal of Rs.35,50,490.47 with 8% p.a. simple interest from filing date till realization, recoverable from hypothecated assets.

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Manohar singh — Money Laundering | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1167/2023

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION:12.09.2023

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 28.01.2026

¶6

Punjab National Bank, a body corporate and a Nationalized Bank constituted under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act 5 of 1970 with its Head Office at Plot No. 4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 and amongst others a branch at Dhaliwal Bet, District Kapurthala, Punjab-144804 through Sh. Ankur Rawat, Senior Manager, Posted at Circle Sastra Centre, Kapurthala Branch Manager and Attorney Holder.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus Sh. Manohar Singh son of Sh. Resham Singh, resident of VPO Dhaliwal Bet, District Kapurthala, Punjab.

¶8

….……Defendant Advocates: Argued by Sh. Manish Singla, Advocate for applicant None for defendant FINAL ORDER 1. Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.35,50,490.47 (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Fifty Thousand Four Hundred Ninety & Paise Forty Seven Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Ankur Rawat, Senior Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of attorney dated 04.11.2016, which is Annexure A1 to this OA. 2. The brief facts of the OA that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.15.00 Lacs vide loan application dated 17.06.2011, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶9

2 OA/1167/2023 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. MANOHAR SINGH

¶10

3. The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.15.00 Lacs vide
Sanction letter, which isAnnexure A3to this OA and the terms and
conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.
4. Defendant had mortgaged his movable property i.e. total land measuring 27K-00M situated at Village Dhaliwal Bet, Sub Tehsil Dhilwan, District Kapurthala, Punjab vide mortgage deed bearing vasika no.380 dated 22.07.2011, along with its translation, which isAnnexure A7to
this OA.
Documents executed: Hypothecation agreement, letter of
undertaking, letter of consent (revised), all dated 30.07.2011, which are Annexures A4 to A6to this OA; Balance Confirmation letters dated
02.06.2014, 14.12.2015, 04.12.2018, 29.11.2021, which isAnnexure
A8to this OA; Notice dated 25.06.2022, which isAnnexure A9to this
OA and Statement of account, which isAnnexure A10to 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.35,50,490.47, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore,
the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.
6. The defendant was served notices to appear before this Tribunal.
Sh. Sachin Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh. Hemant Hans, Advocate
appeared on behalf of defendant on 04.01.2024. Power of Attorney of
Sh. Hemant Hans, Advocate was filed on behalf of defendant on
02.01.2024. WS on behalf of defendant was filed on 03.09.2024. Since
WS filed by defendant was beyond stipulated period, the same was taken on record vide order dated 03.03.2025 subject to payment of cost
of Rs.2000/-. On 04.09.2025, Sh. Rohit Kumar, Manager and Sh. Ankur
Rawat, Senior Manager produced original documents for their admission
or denial wherein the proxy counsel for defendant admitted the signatures on documents produced but denied their contents.

¶11

3 OA/1167/2023 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. MANOHAR SINGH

¶12

The brief facts of the WS filed by defendant is that the applicant of the applicant is not maintainable. It was further stated that the applicant did not fully disburse all credit facilities stated to have been sanctioned to the defendant. It was further stated that the details of the mortgaged property mentioned in para 3-A is wrong. It was further stated that the defendant has cleared all its dues towards the applicant bank and the amount claimed by the applicant in present application is without any application of mind. It was further stated that the documents which are stated to have been referred to in various paras in the body of OA had never been shown and the signatures of the parties are said to be obtained. It was further stated the documents had been placed before the defendant and the signatures were obtained upon the said blank documents. It was further stated that the application of applicant is not maintainable on account of vague and incorrect averments. It was further stated that the statement of account has not been filed in accordance with the provisions of the Section 4 of the Bankers Book Evidence Act,1981. It was further stated the applicant has charged interest more than the interest rate shown in agreement. It was further stated that the applicant is not filed through a duly competent and authorized person and is not supported by a proper and valid affidavit of Sh. Ankur Rawat, Senior Manager. It was further stated that the application is barred by limitation. 8. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Ankur Rawat, Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank has been filed. 9. Heard arguments and perused record. No one appeared on behalf of defendant for arguments. 10. It was argued by learned counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant had proved its case. It was further agreed that the OA is not barred by limitation. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A10 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which

¶13

4 OA/1167/2023 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. MANOHAR SINGH

¶14

was granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendant failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendant was classified as NPA.

¶15

The defendant, in his written statement had stated that his signatures on blank documents were obtained. However, he did not lodge any complaint before any Higher Forum of the bank or Court of Law. Therefore, it is inferred that cock and bull story is prepared by the defendant before this Tribunal. Further, Sh. Ankur Rawat, Senior Manager of the applicant is duly competent to file this application as per his Power of Attorney dated 04.11.2016 (Annexure A1). His affidavit has also been filed by the applicant with the OA.

¶16

The learned counsel for defendant has not produced any evidence which could create any doubt on the claim of the applicant. Contents of WS of defendant are vague and contradictory. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the documentary evidence produced by the applicant from Annexures A1 to A10.

¶17

From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.35,50,490.47 (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Fifty Thousand Four Hundred Ninety & Paise Forty Seven Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶18

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed [email protected]% p.a. with 2% penal interest with half yearly rest from 01.04.2023 till realization.

¶19

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 defendant, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester

¶20

5 OA/1167/2023 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. MANOHAR SINGH

¶21

years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶22

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.35,50,490.47 (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Fifty Thousand Four Hundred Ninety & Paise Forty Seven Only) with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account 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 defendant 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 defendant. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶23

13. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶24

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 15. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 10.02.2026. 16. Copy of this order be given Dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendant through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶25

Dated: 28.01.2026.

¶26

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer,

¶27

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Manohar singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Manohar 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

State Bank of India versus Sh. Angrej Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Karanjit Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Joginder Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Nirmal Singh and Another

Indian Bank versus Resham Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Jasvir Singh and Others