Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Sh. Suresh Kumar

DRT30 Jul 2026OA/1326/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by Bank of Maharashtra for recovery of ₹48,77,284.98 with interest from defendants. The Bank advanced loans secured by mortgage and hypothecation, but defendants failed to repay. The Tribunal allowed recovery via sale of secured assets and from personal property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹48,77,284.98 with interest and costs allowed; Recovery Certificate issued for sale of mortgaged and hypothecated assets.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sh. Suresh Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1326/2025 Date of Institution: 31.07.2025 Date of Decision: 30.07.2026

¶4

Bank of Maharashtra having its branches all over India and a branch at SCF 10-111, Model Town, Phase-1, Bathinda, Punjab, also at Asset Recovery Branch: SCO- 120-122, SECTOR -17-C, Chandigarh.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Sh. Suresh Kumar s/o Sh. Janak Shah, r/o House No. 680 C, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda, Punjab.

¶8

Smt. Amita Gupta w/o Sh. Suresh Kumar, r/o H.No. 680 C, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda, Punjab.

¶9

Sh. Mithilesh Kumar Singh s/o Sh. Birendra Singh, r/o Piparahi, Parsauni Khas, Gopalganj, Manbodhparsauni, Bihar.

¶10

M/s Suresh Fish Company, through its Proprietor Sh. Suresh Kumar, Situated at: Shop No. 5 & 6, Near Bus Stand, Bathinda, Punjab.

¶11

……….Defendants

¶12

Advocates

¶13

Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Counsel for the applicant bank along with Sh. Abdul Wahab, Manager of the applicant bank. Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 22.07.2026 .

¶14

OA for the Recovery of ₹48,77,284.98p with interest from 31.07.2025.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Bank of Maharashtra has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹48,77,284.98p with interest against Sh. Suresh Kumar and others (defendants).

¶17

Bank’s case is that on 20.01.2022, it had granted a Home Loan of ₹19.90 Lacs to defendant Nos.1 and 2 for Housing purpose under Maha Super Housing Loan Scheme. To secure the Home Loan, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.5.7 of the

¶18

¶19

application). Defendant No.3 stood as guarantor for the Home Loan of ₹19.90 Lacs vide Guarantee Agreement dated 20.01.2022.

¶20

2A. On 25.02.2022, at the request of the defendants, bank granted a Vehicle loan of ₹70,000/- to defendant No.1 for Vehicle purpose. To secure the Vehicle Loan, Defendant No.1 hypothecated his vehicle bearing Registration No. PB03BJ2887 (fully detailed in para No.5.8 of the application).

¶21

2B. Again on 21.04.2022, at the request of the defendants, bank granted a C.C. Limit of ₹17.00 Lacs and a Term Loan of ₹8.00 Lacs to defendant no.4 through its proprietor defendant No.1 under MSMEWholesaler of fish and Chicken category for Business purpose. All the loan facilities were chargeable to different rates of interest. To secure the loans, Defendant no.1 hypothecated assets and mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.5.7 of the application). On 10.07.2025, total sum of ₹48,77,284.98p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶22

On 22.08.2025, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 22.07.2026, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶23

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Nishit Chandra, Authorized Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-33(Colly). 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. Sh. Abdul Wahab, Manager is present with the original documents which have been perused by me. The same have been returned to him after perusal. I am of the

¶24

¶25

considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced total loan of ₹45.60 Lacs (Home Loan of ₹19.90 Lacs; Vehicle Loan of ₹70,000/-; Term Loan of ₹8.00 Lacs; C.C. Limit of ₹17.00 Lacs) and on 10.07.2025, a sum of ₹48,77,284.98p was due.

¶26

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹48,77,284.98p (Rupees Forty Eight Lacs Seventy Seven Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Four and Paise Ninety Eight Only) ₹21,58,543/- in Home Loan with interest @6.85% p.a.; ₹53,597/- in Vehicle Loan with interest @10.30% p.a.; ₹6,68,496/- in Term Loan with interest @9.55% p.a.; ₹19,96,648.98p in C.C. Limit with interest @9.55% p.a. (all facilities) with monthly rests from 31.07.2025, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of defendant Nos.1 to 3 would be joint and several for the amount due in Home Loan. The liability of defendant Nos.1 and 4 would be joint and several for the amount due in the C.C. Limit and Term Loan. Defendant no.1 would be fully liable for the amount due in the Vehicle Loan. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property and hypothecated assets fully detailed in para No.5.7 and 5.8 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants accordingly. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 01.09.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property and hypothecated assets 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: 30.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Bank of Maharashtra v. Sh. Suresh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Sh. Suresh Kumar

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

Canara Bank versus Hardeep Singh

Sanjay Kumar Mishra versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Central Bank of India versus Vijay Kumar Maurya

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s Aakriti Enterprises

Canara Bank versus M/S Chandan and Chandan Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Sandeep Kumar versus Punjab and Sind Bank