Allowed

Bank of India v. Shri Raman Kumar Alias Raman

DRT17 Feb 2026OA/144/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this ex parte application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Bank of India to recover ₹30,82,562/- with interest from the primary borrower and guarantor following default on agricultural and AGOD loans, authorizing sale of mortgaged land and issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of ₹30,82,562/- plus interest; liability declared joint and several; Recovery Certificate issued; mortgaged land directed for sale.

Bank of India versus Shri Raman Kumar Alias Raman — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 144/2024 Date of Institution: 18.12.2023 Date of Decision: 17.02.2026

¶4

Bank of India having its branches all over India and a branch at Opposite Sanjeev Cinema, G.T Road, Fazilka, Tehsil and District Fazilka, Punjab,

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Sh. Raman Kumar alias Raman son of Sh. Tara Chand resident of H. no. 197, Village Bodiwala Pitha Tehsil and District Fazilka, Punjab.

¶8

Sh. Surjeet Kumar son of Sh. Kalu Ram resident of Village Bodiwal Pitha Tehsil and District Fazilka, Punjab.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Ms. Tanu Sidhu proxy counsel for Sh. Pankaj Beri, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶12

Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 11.08.2025 .

¶13

OA for the Recovery of ₹30,82,562/- with interest from 18.12.2023.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Bank of India has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹30,82,562/- with interest against Sh. Raman Kumar alias Raman and others (defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 04.03.2015, it had granted K.C.C. Limit of ₹3.00 Lacs, AGOD Limit of ₹7.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his agricultural land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for both the facilities vide deed of guarantee dated 04.03.2015, (Exhibit A-15). Both the loans were

¶17

¶18

chargeable at different rates of interest. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 08.02.2018, 22.12.2020. On 30.11.2023, a sum of ₹30,82,562/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶19

On 12.02.2024, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 11.08.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶20

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Ajit Singh Dadwal, Authorized Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-23.

¶21

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 total loan of ₹10.00 Lacs and on 30.11.2023, a sum of ₹30,82,562/- was due.

¶22

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹30,82,562/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Eighty Two Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Two Only) i.e. ₹7,72,228/- in K.C.C. Limit with interest @10% p.a. and ₹23,10,334/- in AGOD Limit with interest @13% p.a. (both facilities) with half-yearly rests from 18.12.2023, 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.

¶23

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶24

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶25

¶26

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 27.03.2026, 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: 17.02.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Bank of India v. Shri Raman Kumar Alias Raman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Shri Raman Kumar Alias Raman

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

State Bank of India versus M/S Bhagwati Enterprises

Icici Bank Limited versus Ram Krishan

Hdfc Bank versus Gurlal Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Shreyam Enterprise

Hasna Bewa versus Punjab National Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Bhajan Kaur