Allowed

Bank of India v. Smt. Harjit Kaur and Another

DRT24 Apr 2026OA/184/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this recovery proceeding, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of India's application to recover Rs.52,16,678.00 from two borrowers and a guarantor. The court fixed interest at 08% per annum and ordered the issuance of a Recovery Certificate, permitting attachment and sale of assets if the debt remains unsatisfied.

What did the court decide?

Declaring liability to pay Rs.52,16,678.00 with 08% p.a. interest; ordering issue of Recovery Certificate; granting liberty to enforce claim through attachment and sale of assets.

Bank of India versus Smt. Harjit Kaur and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.184/2023

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 25.01.2023

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 24.04.2026

¶6

Bank of India, a Body Corporate under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act No. V of 1970, having its Head Office at “Star House” C-5, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051 and Branch Office amongst other places, at Sahnewal, District Ludhiana, Punjab through its duly constituted attorney Sh. Simarpreet Singh, presently posted as Chief Manager at Model Town Branch, Ludhiana, Punjab

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Smt. Harjit Kaur W/o Sh. Harbhag Singh, R/o Village Chak Sarwan Nath, PO Chandran, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, Punjab-141113

¶10

Sh. Harminder Singh S/o Sh. Harnam Singh, R/o Village Chak Sarwan, PO Chandaran, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, Punjab141113

¶11

……..Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Anil Malhotra, Advocate proxy for Ms. Meena Malhotra, Advocate for Applicant

¶14

Sh. Dhruv Chowfla, Advocate for Defendant no. 1

¶15

None for Defendant no. 2 (already ex-parte vide order dated 26.04.2024)

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.52,16,678.00 (Rupees Fifty Two Lacs Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Eight Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Simarpreet Singh, Chief Manager, of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application

¶18

2 OA/184/2023 BANK OF INDIA VS. HARJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER

¶19

vide Power of Attorney dated 04.02.2016, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for the grant of KCC Limit of Rs.15.00 Lacs and Agriculture Overdraft Limit of Rs.10.00 Lacs vide loan applications dated 24.08.2012, which are Annexure A2 and A3 to this OA. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor. 3. The applicant sanctioned the KCC Limit of Rs.15.00 Lacs and Agriculture Overdraft Limit of Rs.10.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letters dated 26.09.2012, which are Annexures A5 and A6 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no. 1 mortgaged her immovable property i.e. Land measuring 23K-18M situated at Village Chak Sarwan Nath, Hadbast no.216, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, Punjab vide mortgaged deed bearing vasika no. 2715 dated 19.09.2012, along with its translation, which is Annexure A4 to this OA.

¶21

Documents executed: Demand Promissory Notes, Bearer Letters, Loan Cum Hypothecation Agreement, Consolidated/Multipurpose Stamp Undertakings, Letters of Declaration/Undertaking and Authority, Deed of Guarantee, all dated 26.09.2012, which are Annexures A7 to A17 to this OA; Acknowledgment of Debts dated 25.09.2015, 14.06.2017, 11.11.2019 which are Annexures A18 and A23 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 21.12.2022, along with postal receipts, which are Annexures A24 to A26 to this OA; Statement of account with uncharged interest with certificate under Bankers Book Evidence Act, which are Annexures A27 and A28 to this OA.

¶22

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in both the loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.52,16,678.00, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notice but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶23

3 OA/184/2023 BANK OF INDIA VS. HARJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER

¶24

The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal. No one appeared on behalf of defendant no. 2 and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26.04.2024. Sh. Dhruv Chowfla, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendant no. 1 on 19.07.2023 and filed his Power of Attorney on behalf of defendant no. 1. Since, no WS was filed by defendant no. 1, her opportunity to file WS was closed and her defense was struck off vide order dated 26.04.2024. Thereafter, the matter was posted for arguments. On 22.05.2024 IA No. 829/2024 was filed by defendant no. 1 to set aside the order dated 26.04.2024, which was dismissed on 04.04.2026. On 09.04.2026, the learned counsel for defendant no. 1 filed an IA No.654/2026 for recalling of order dated 04.04.2026 wherein the IA No. 829/2024 filed by defendant no. 1 for setting aside order dated 26.04.2024 was dismissed. This IA No. 654/2026 was dismissed after hearing both the parties vide order dated 17.04.2026.

¶25

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Simarpreet Singh, Chief Manager, Bank of India has been filed.

¶26

Heard arguments and perused record.

¶27

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

¶28

Learned Counsel for defendant no. 1 did not advance any arguments on the OA. No one appeared on behalf of defendant no. 2 for arguments.

¶29

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to Annexure A28 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, loan accounts were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.52,16,678.00 (Rupees Fifty Two Lacs Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Eight

¶30

4 OA/184/2023 BANK OF INDIA VS. HARJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER

¶31

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.

¶32

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @12.70%p.a. including 2% penal interest with half yearly rests from 16.12.2022 till the realization.

¶33

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 @08.00%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.

¶34

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.52,16,678.00 (Rupees Fifty Two Lacs Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Eight Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%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 property/hypothecated assets of the 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.

¶35

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶36

5 OA/184/2023

¶37

BANK OF INDIA VS. HARJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER

¶38

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶39

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 15.05.2026.

¶40

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 .

¶41

Dated: 24.04.2026.

¶42

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶43

Presiding Officer,

¶44

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Bank of India v. Smt. Harjit Kaur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Smt. Harjit Kaur 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 M/S G.N. Construction and Others

Central Bank of India versus M/S Veer Print Pack and Another

Canara Bank versus M/S Hanumat Processors and Others

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Madhav International and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Labh Singh and Others

Canara Bank versus M/S Krn Power Tech and Others