Allowed

Punjab Gramin Bank v. Sh. Sukhdeep Singh and Another

DRT10 Jun 2026OA/1755/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal ex-parte allowed an Original Application filed by Punjab Gramin Bank against borrowers who failed to repay a Kisan Credit Card loan. The court declared the borrowers liable to pay the principal sum with costs and reduced future interest to 8% per annum, ordering recovery via sale of mortgaged property or attachment of assets.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of liability to pay Rs. 27,77,430.00 plus costs and simple interest at 8% p.a.; issuance of Recovery Certificate; liberty to recover via sale of mortgaged or personal assets; disposal of p

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Sukhdeep Singh and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1755/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 17.12.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 10.06.2026

¶6

Punjab Gramin Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Regional Rural Bank Act 1976, Act No 21 of 1976 having its Head Office, at Markfed Road Kapurthala, Punjab and having its branches at different places including one at Salapur, P.O Boormajara, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar, Punjab through its Constituted Attorney/ Manager Sh. Pawan Kumar.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Sukhdeep Singh S/o Sh. Jasvir Singh, R/o Village Gaggarwal, Tehsil Khamanoo, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.

¶10

Sh. Supinder Singh S/o Manjeet Singh, R/o Village Hirdapur, District Rupnagar, Punjab - 140108.

¶11

……..Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate for the applicant (through VC)

¶14

None for defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 08.06.2026).

¶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.27,77,430.00 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Seventy Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Pawan Kumar, Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 22.01.2021, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

2 OA NO.1755/2025 PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK VS SH. SUKHDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for grant of Kisan Credit Card limit of Rs.15,00,000.00 vide Loan Application Form for Agricultural Credit dated 16.08.2020, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned the Kisan Credit Card limit of Rs.15,00,000.00 vide Letter of Sanction dated 20.08.2020, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor.

¶20

Defendant no. 1 mortgaged his immovable asset i.e., total Land measuring 14 Bighas situated at Village Narike, Hadbast No. 142, Malerkotla, Sangrur District, as per Jamabandi for the year 20142015 vide Registered Mortgage dated 20.08.2020 along with Declaration u/s 4(1), which is Annexure A5 to this OA.

¶21

Documents executed: Hypothecation Agreement, Agreement of Guarantee, both dated 25.08.2020, which are Annexures A4 & A4/1 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 02.05.2024, along with postal receipt, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Balance and Security Confirmation Letter dated 07.04.2021, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Statement of Account along with certificate, which is Annexure A8 to this OA. 5. The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account there was a debit of Rs.27,77,430.00, 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 summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.06.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Pawan Kumar, Manager, Punjab Gramin Bank h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶22

3 OA NO.1755/2025 PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK VS SH. SUKHDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶23

It was argued by learned counsel for applicant through video conferencing that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case.

¶24

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A8 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no.1 approached applicant for availing of loan facility which was granted to him, defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, loan account was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.27,77,430.00 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Seventy Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Only), along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶25

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. with yearly rests with penal interest @2.00%p.a. from 01.04.2025 till the realization.

¶26

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, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan 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 simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶27

4 OA NO.1755/2025 PUNJAB GRAMIN BANK VS SH. SUKHDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant sum of Rs.27,77,430.00 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Seventy Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Only), along with interest, jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan account 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 property of defendant no. 1 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.

¶29

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 24.06.2026. 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: 10.06.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer,

¶30

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Punjab Gramin Bank v. Sh. Sukhdeep Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab Gramin Bank v. Sh. Sukhdeep 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

State Bank of India versus Sh. Subeg Singh and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Arora Apparels and Others

Idbi Bank Limited versus Sh. Gursewak Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Vinod Cement and Building Material Store and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Ms. Sunita Devi and Another

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Chandigarh Packages and Others