Allowed

Punjab Gramin Bank v. Sh. Kuldeep Singh

DRT12 Feb 2026OA/1185/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 27,48,882.00 along with interest from the defaulting defendant, reducing the claimed interest rate to 8% p.a. and ordered enforcement through hypothecated property sale.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 27,48,882.00 at 8% per annum simple interest via sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties or attachment of personal assets; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Kuldeep Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1185/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 16.08.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 12.02.2026

¶6

Punjab Gramin Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Regional Rural Bank Act 1976, Act No 21 of 1976 having its Head Office at Markfed Road, Kapurthala (Punjab) and having its branches at different places including one at Paramjitpur, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala (Punjab), through its Constituted Attorney/ Manager Sh. Munish Sohal

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

Sh. Kuldeep Singh S/o of Sh. Dayal Singh, R/o Village Sangra, PO Kabirpur, District Kapurthala (Punjab)

¶9

………Defendant

¶10

Advocates:

¶11

Argued by Sh. Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate for the applicant (through

¶12

VC)

¶13

Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 06.01.2026

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.27,48,882.00 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Two Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Munish Sohal, Constituted Attorney/ Branch Manager of the applicant who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 04.09.2020, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶16

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant had approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs.17.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 17.03.2021, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶17

2 OA NO.1185/2025 PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK VS. KULDEEP SINGH

¶18

3. The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.17.00 Lacs vide
Sanction Letter dated 24.03.2021, which isAnnexure A3to this OA
and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.
4. Defendant mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Total Land
measuring 87K-00M detailed as under:
(i) Land Measuring 17K-02M situated at Village Sangra, Hadbast No.
110, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala
(ii) Land Measuring 24K-16M situated at Village Mand Mubarakpur, Hadbast No. 109, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala
(iii) Land Measuring 12K-00M situated at Village Mubarakpur, Hadbast
No. 108, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala
(iv) Land Measuring 33K-02M situated at Village Mand Bhim Kadim, Hadbast No. 164, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala
Vide declaration dated 24.03.2021 u/s 4(1) of Punjab
Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks)
Act, 1978, which isAnnexure A5to this OA.
Documents executed:Hypothecation Agreement dated 30.03.2021, which isAnnexure A4to this OA; Notice dated 29.04.2024 along with
its translation, which isAnnexure A6to this OA; BC Letter dated
18.03.2024, which isAnnexure A7to this OA; Statement of account
dated 16.08.2025, which isAnnexure A8to 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.27,48,882.00 which is recoverable and the defendant was
served recall notice 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
but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded ex- parte vide order dated 06.01.2026.
7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Munish Sohal, Constituted
Attorney/ Branch Manager, Punjab Gramin Bank has been filed.
8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶19

3 OA NO.1185/2025 PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK VS. KULDEEP SINGH

¶20

It was argued by learned counsel through video conferencing that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the applicant. 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. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.27,48,882.00 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Two Only) along with interest from the defendant from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶21

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.50%p.a.in with 2% penal interest with yearly rests from 11.08.2025 till the realization.

¶22

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 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.

¶23

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.27,48,882.00 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Two Only) with costs, current and future simple

¶24

4 OA NO.1185/2025 PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK VS. KULDEEP SINGH

¶25

interest @8.00%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/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. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of . 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 26.02.2026. 15. 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 . Dated: 12.02.2026.

¶26

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

Punjab Gramin Bank v. Sh. Kuldeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab Gramin Bank v. Sh. Kuldeep 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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Bhupinder Singh and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Rajbir Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Harbans Singh and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Smt. Taranjit Kaur and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Satnam Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Sukhbir Singh Sandhu Alias Sukhvir Singh through His Legal Heirs and Another