Allowed

Canara Bank v. Pavittar Singh

DRT9 Mar 2026OA/1228/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an OA filed by Canara Bank for recovery of ₹25,67,458.05p with interest against two defendants who borrowed ₹15.00 Lacs. The court held the bank proved the case and passed order for sale of mortgaged land and issuance of recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of ₹25,67,458.05p with interest; directed sale of mortgaged land and issuance of recovery certificate; liability is joint and several.

Canara Bank versus Pavittar Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1228/2022 Date of Institution: 10.06.2022 Date of Decision: 09.03.2026

¶4

Canara Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Ramgarh, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Pavittar Singh s/o Sh. Onkar Singh @Omkar Singh, r/o H.No.132, Village Tehand, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶8

Satnam Singh s/o Sh. Lachman Singh, r/o Village Bachowal, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Sh. Munish Chaudhary, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 14.03.2024 .

¶12

OA for the Recovery of ₹25,67,458.05p with interest @11.05% per annum with half-yearly rests from 10.06.2022.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Canara Bank has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹25,67,458.05p with interest against Sh. Pavittar Singh and another (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 24.03.2008, it had granted a loan of ₹5.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. Again on 28.03.2011, bank renewed the K.C.C. Limit of ₹5.00Lacs. Again on 12.09.2013, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹5.00Lacs to ₹15.00Lacs. The K.C.C. Limit was renewed at ₹15.00Lacs on 12.09.2013. Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor vide guarantee agreement dated 12.09.2013. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para

¶16

¶17

No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @11.05% per annum with half-yearly rests. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 23.03.2011, 10.05.2013, 18.02.2016, 23.01.2019 and 07.01.2022. On 10.06.2022, a sum of ₹25,67,458.05p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶18

On 11.07.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 14.03.2024, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶19

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Haribhajan Kailey, Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-21.

¶20

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 ₹15.00Lacs and on 10.06.2022, a sum of ₹25,67,458.05p was due.

¶21

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹25,67,458.05p (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Eight and Paise Five Only) with interest @11.05% per annum with half-yearly rests from 10.06.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of both the defendants would be joint and several. 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 defendants.

¶22

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶23

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶24

¶25

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 16.04.2026, 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 . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 09.03.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Canara Bank v. Pavittar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Pavittar 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 Mr. Ravi Kumar

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ashoka Industries

Bank of India versus Didar Singh through Lrs

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus David Harvinder Singh

Star Dairy and Ors. versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Canara Bank versus Uttam Singh @ Udham Singh