Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Mastan Singh

DRT25 Aug 2026OA/1322/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 23,84,566.32 plus interest against the defendant. The court observed that the bank proved the advance of a KCC limit and the outstanding dues via affidavit evidence, and since the defendant appeared ex parte, the recovery order and certificate were issued against his mortgaged and personal properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 23,84,566.32 with interest; issuance of Recovery Certificate; execution against mortgaged and personal properties.

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Mastan 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: 1322/2023 Date of Institution: 17.05.2023 Date of Decision: 25.08.2026

¶4

Punjab National Bank, branch at Talwandi Rai Dadu, Distt Amritsar.

¶5

…Applicant Vs. Sh. Mastan Singh S/o sh. Bachan Singh R/o village Sarang Dev Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar, Punjab Pin code 143102. …Defendant

¶6

Advocates

¶7

Sh. Manish Singla, Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Defendant – ex parte .

¶8

OA for the Recovery of Rs.23,84,566.32p with interest @11.50% per annum with half-yearly rests from 17.05.2023.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

On 17.05.2023, Punjab National Bank filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.23,84,566.32p with interest against Sh. Mastan Singh (defendant).

¶11

Bank’s case is that on 30.01.2015, it had granted a KCC limit of Rs.18.00Lacs to the defendant for agricultural purpose. To secure the limit, defendant had mortgaged his agricultural land (fully detailed in para No.5(vi) of the application). The limit was chargeable to interest @11.50% per annum with half-yearly rests. The defendant had acknowledged his liability towards the debt on 23.01.2018 and 15.01.2021. On 31.03.2023, a sum of Rs.23,84,566.32p was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶12

¶13

On 14.08.2023, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 16.09.2025, he was proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Authorized Officer, along with the loan and security documents. 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 a KCC limit of Rs.18 lacs and on 31.03.2023, a sum of Rs.23,84,566.32p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the Bank for the recovery of Rs.23,84,566.32p (Rupees Twenty-Three Lacs Eighty-Four Thousand Five Hundred Sixty-Six and Paise Thirty-Two Only) with interest @11.50% per annum with half-yearly rests from 17.05.2023, 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.5(vi) of the application) as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 28.09.2026 . 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: 25.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh HARSH

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Mastan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Mastan 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

Rajinder Kaur Chhabra versus Aavas Financiers Limited

Karur Vysya Bank versus Singh Communication

State Bank of India versus Vijay Naithani and Ors.

Federal Bank versus Mr. Sajjan Dhingra

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Sumit Ornament House

Union Bank of India versus Sh Raman Sharma and Ors.