Allowed

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Manjit Singh and Another

DRT12 Feb 2026OA/1619/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dr. B.J.P. DRT-III allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs22L from farmers Jagraj Singh and Manjit Singh who defaulted on agricultural credit loans. The tribunal granted a uniform interest rate of 8% and authorized recovery via sale of mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.22,04,220.57 with 8% p.a. interest; authority to sell mortgaged property under SARFAESI Act; Recovery Certificate issued.

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Manjit Singh and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1619/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 18.11.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 12.02.2026

¶6

HDFC Bank Limited, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and Bank within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and having its registered office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013 and its Regional Office at HDFC Bank Ltd., Bank House, Plot No I-15, Sector 101 Alpha, IT City, Mohali, District S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab -160062 and having one of its branch office at Malout, District Muktsar (Punjab) through its authorized signatory Sh. Sandeep Kumar Garg.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Manjit Singh Son of Sh. Jagraj Singh, Resident of Village Gurusar Jodhe Ka, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar- 152115

¶10

Sh. Jagraj Singh son of Sh. Harbans Singh, R/O Village Gurusar Jodhe Ka, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar -152115

¶11

….……Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Abhinav Singla, Advocate proxy for Sh. Ankur Jindal, Advocate for applicant

¶14

Defendants already ex parte vide order dated 06.01.2026

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.22,04,220.57 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Four Thousand Two Hundred Twenty & Paise Fifty Seven Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Sandeep Kumar Garg, of the applicant, who is competent to institute

¶17

¶18

OA NO.1619/2025 HDFC BANK VS. MANJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶19

the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 17.01.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants approached the applicant for the grant of Agriculture Cash Credit Limit of Rs.10.00 Lacs & Agriculture Term loan of Rs.5.10 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 31.12.2014, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned the Agriculture Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 10.00 Lacs & Agriculture Term loan of Rs.5.00 Lacs vide sanction Letters 02.01.2015, which are Annexures A3 & A4 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no. 2 mortgaged his immovable property i.e. land measuring 32Kanal-00Marla situated at Village Gurusar, Tehsil Malout, District Muktsar, Punjab vide declaration dated 05.01.2015 u/s 4(1) of Punjab Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1978, which is AnnexureA5 to this OA; Confirmation of mutation dated 07.01.2015, which is Annexure A6 to this OA. Documents executed: Agreement for CC Limit & Term loan facility, both dated 09.01.2015, which are Annexures A7 & A8 to this OA; Statements of accounts with certificate, which are Annexures A9 to A11 to this OA; Legal notice dated 19.06.2025 with postal receipts dated 23.06.2025, which are Annexures A12 & A14 to this OA. 5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.22,04,220.57, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 06.01.2026.

¶22

¶23

OA NO.1619/2025 HDFC BANK VS. MANJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶24

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Kumar Garg, Branch Manager , HDFC Bank Limited, h as been filed.

¶25

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶26

It was argued by learned proxy counsel 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 A14 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.22,04,220.57 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Four Thousand Two Hundred Twenty & Paise Fifty Seven Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts. 10. In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.50%p.a. in CC from 10.04.2025 and @13%p.a. in Term Loan from 19.06.2025 till the realization.

¶27

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 defendants, quantum of loans 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

¶28

¶29

OA NO.1619/2025 HDFC BANK VS. MANJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶30

@8.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶31

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.22,04,220.57 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Four Thousand Two Hundred Twenty & Paise Fifty Seven Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts 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 mortgaged properties/hypothecated assets of defendants 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 defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶32

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 26.02.2026. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 12.02.2026. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Manjit Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank Limited v. Sh. Manjit Singh and Another

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Bhupinder Singh and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Rajbir Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Harbans Singh and Others

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Kuldeep Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Smt. Taranjit Kaur and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Satnam Singh and Others