Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Shri Sahib Ram

DRT21 Aug 2026OA/1636/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act to recover a KCC facility loan of Rs. 16 lacs, adjudging a sum of Rs. 21,01,209.31 with interest. The order authorized recovery through the sale of hypothecated assets and the respondents' property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 21,01,209.31 with interest @11.50% per annum; direction to issue Recovery Certificate; authority to recover via sale of mortgaged/hypothecated assets or personal property.

Punjab National Bank versus Shri Sahib Ram — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1636/2023 Date of Institution: 11.09.2023 Date of Decision: 21.08.2026

¶4

Punjab National Bank, B/u Panjkosi, Punjab.

¶5

…Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Shri Sahib Ram S/o Shri Surja Ram R/o V.P.O Siwana, District Fazilka, Punjab.

¶8

…Defendant

¶9

Advocates

¶10

Sh. Bharat Kawal, proxy Counsel for Sh. AS Sobti, Counsel for the Applicant Bank along with Sh. Sahil Arora, Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank.

¶11

Defendant – ex parte .

¶12

OA for the Recovery of Rs.21,01,209.31р with interest @11.50% per annum with half-yearly rests from 11.09.2023.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

On 11.09.2023, 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.21,01,209.31р with interest against Shri Sahib Ram (defendant).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 10.12.2015, it had granted a KCC facility of Rs.16 lacs to the defendant for agricultural purpose. To secure the facility, defendant had hypothecated crops and mortgaged land (fully detailed in para Nos.5.3 and 5.6 of the application, respectively). The facility was chargeable to interest @11.60% per annum with half-yearly rests. The defendant had acknowledged his liability towards the debt on 24.09.2018 and 09.09.2021. On 01.07.2023, a sum of Rs.21,01,209.31р was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶16

¶17

3. On 09.10.2023, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 18.10.2024, he was proceeded_ex parte_.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Rakesh Valecha, Deputy Manager, along with the loan and security documents.
5. I have perused the evidence on the record. Mr. Sahil Arora, Branch
Manager, is present along with the original documents which have been perused by me. The same have been returned to him after perusal. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced a KCC facility of Rs.16 lacs and on 01.07.2023, a sum of Rs.21,01,209.31р was due.
6. Accordingly, the application of the Bank for the recovery of
Rs.21,01,209.31р (Rupees Twenty-One Lacs One Thousand Two Hundred
Nine and Paise Thirty-One Only) with interest @ 11.50% per annum with half-yearly rests from 11.09.2023, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated crops and mortgaged land (fully detailed in para Nos.5.3 and 5.6 of the application,
respectively) as well as from the personal movable and immovable
property(ies) of the defendant.
7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on
24.09.2026.
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:21.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh HARSH

Punjab National Bank v. Shri Sahib Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Shri Sahib Ram

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

Bank of Baroda versus Radhakrishnan

Anil Kumawat versus Tata Capital Housing Fiannce Ltd.

M S Wasan Shoes Ltd. versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Ms Kritima Fuel Service and Ors.

Sadhana Anup Patil versus Icici Home Finance Company Limited

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Ranta Fruit Co.