Allowed

Punjab Gramin Bank v. Sh. Ranjit Singh

DRT9 Feb 2026OA/1186/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Punjab Gramin Bank against Ranjit Singh. The court adjudicated the bank's claim for a KCC loan amount of Rs. 26,86,896.00. Taking into account market conditions, the Tribunal granted uniform simple interest at 8% per annum and directed the recovery of the dues from hypothecated assets or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 26,86,896.00 plus simple interest @ 8% p.a. from the filing date until realization from the sale of mortgaged or personal assets.

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Ranjit Singh — Consumer Protection | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1186/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 16.08.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 09.02.2026

¶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. Ranjit Singh S/o Sh. Dyal Singh, R/o Village Sangra, PO Kabirpur, District Kapurthala (Punjab).

¶9

….……Defendant Advocates: Argued by Sh. Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate for applicant (through VC) Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 01.01.2026

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

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.26,86,896.00 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Eighty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Six Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Munish Sohal, 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.

¶12

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

¶13

2 OA/1186/2025 PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK VS RANJIT SINGH

¶14

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.17.00 Lacs vide sanction letter dated 24.03.2021, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶15

Defendant had mortgaged his movable property i.e. Total Land measuring 93K-09M detailed as under:

¶16

(i) Land measuring 13K-02M situated at Village Sangra, Hadbast No. 110, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, Punjab (ii) Land measuring 16K-04M situated at Village Bhim Khadim, Hadbast No. 161, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, Punjab (iii) Land measuring 08K-16M situated at Village Mand Bandu Jadid, Hadbast No. 165, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, Punjab (iv) Land measuring 36K-12M situated at Village Mand Bhim Khadim, Hadbast No. 164, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, Punjab (v) Land measuring 18K-15M situated at Village Mand Mubarakpur, Hadbast No. 109, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, Punjab

¶17

vide declaration u/s 4(1) dated 24.03.2021, which is Annexure A5 to this OA.

¶18

Documents executed: Hypothecation agreement dated 13.04.2021, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Notice dated 29.04.2024, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; BC Letter dated 15.03.2024, which is Annexure A7 to this OA and Statement of account along with certificate, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶19

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.26,86,896.00, 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.

¶20

The defendant was served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte vide order dated 01.01.2026.

¶21

3 OA/1186/2025 PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK VS RANJIT SINGH

¶22

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Munish Sohal, Branch Manage r, Punjab Gramin Bank, h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶23

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 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. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.26,86,896.00 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Eighty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Six Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶24

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 and half yearly rest from 11.08.2025 till realization.

¶25

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

¶26

4 OA/1186/2025 PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK VS RANJIT SINGH

¶27

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

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.26,86,896.00 (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Eighty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Six 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.

¶29

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 23.02.2026. 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.

¶30

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 09.02.2026

¶31

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

Punjab Gramin Bank v. Sh. Ranjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab Gramin Bank v. Sh. Ranjit 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 Sh. Harchand Singh and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Messrs Malout Commission Agent and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Gurcharan Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhwinder Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Smt. Santran Devi and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Sat Guru Trading Co. and Others