Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sukhjinder Singh

DRT20 May 2026OA/184/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows an application under Section 19 of the RDB Act filed by HDFC Bank Limited for recovery of ₹42,65,089.22p with interest from the defendants, acknowledging the liability of legal heirs and ordering recovery from mortgaged and personal properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹42,65,089.22p with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; Sale of mortgaged lands directed; Recovery Officer directed to distribute proceeds.

Hdfc Bank versus Sukhjinder Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 184/2023

¶4

Date of Institution: 27.12.2022 Date of Decision: 20.05.2026

¶5

HDFC Bank Limited having its branches all over India and a branch at Gurdaspur, Punjab, also at HDFC Bank House, Plot No.28, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

¶6

……. Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Sukhjinder Singh s/o Sh. Balkar Singh, r/o H.No.43, Mattwan, Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶9

Jagtar Singh s/o Sh. Piara Singh, r/o H.No.45, Mattwan, Gurdaspur, Punjab, that the details of Class-I Legal Heirs of Jagtar Singh (since deceased) is as under; -

¶10

(i) Harmeet Singh s/o Late Sh. Jagtar Singh, r/o H.No.45, Mattwan, Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶11

(ii) Manpreet Singh s/o Late Sh. Jagtar Singh, r/o H.No.45, Mattwan, Gurdaspur, Punjab

¶12

Manjinder Singh s/o Sh. Balkar Singh, r/o Mattam, Behrampur, Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶13

………. Defendants

¶14

Advocates

¶15

Sh. Amit Rishi, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 04.02.2025 .

¶16

OA for the Recovery of ₹42,65,089.22p with interest from 27.12.2022.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

HDFC Bank Limited has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹42,65,089.22p with interest against Sh. Sukhjinder Singh and others (defendants).

¶19

Bank’s case is that on 10.02.2016, it had granted K.C.C Limit of

¶20

₹27.00 Lacs and a Demand Overdraft Limit (DOD) of ₹5.80 Lacs under

¶21

¶22

Farm Development Scheme to defendant No.1 for agricultural purpose. To secure both the loans, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors for the above said both limits. Both the loan facilities were chargeable at different rates of interest. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 01.10.2018. On 30.11.2022, a sum of ₹42,65,089.22p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶23

On 09.02.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served.

¶24

3A. During the course of the proceedings, IA No.319 of 2024, filed by the applicant bank for impleading the LRs’ of defendant No.2 along with amended memo of parties was allowed vide order dated 09.08.2024. Thereafter, summonses were sent to the LRs’ of defendant No.2, but no one from the LRs’ nor from defendant Nos.1 and 3 appeared before this Tribunal. Accordingly, vide order dated 04.02.2025, all the defendants were proceeded ex parte .

¶25

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Harminder Pal Singh, Authorized Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-13.

¶26

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 the loan of ₹32.80 Lacs and on 30.11.2022, a sum of ₹42,65,089.22p was due.

¶27

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹42,65,089.22p (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Sixty Five Thousand Eighty Nine and Paise Twenty Two Only) i.e. ₹39,91,435.70p in K.C.C. Limit

¶28

¶29

with interest @12% p.a.; ₹2,73,653.52p in Term Loan under K.G.C. Limit with interest @15.50% p.a. (both facilities) with half-yearly rests from 27.12.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of the legal heirs of defendant No.2 would be limited upto the extent of the property(ies) inherited by them from Sh. Jagtar Singh (now deceased) whereas the liability of defendant Nos.1 and 3 would be joint and several for the whole decretal amount. 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 defendant Nos.1 and 3.

¶30

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶31

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶32

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 24.06.2026, 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 .

¶33

A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties.

¶34

Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 20.05.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Hdfc Bank v. Sukhjinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sukhjinder Singh

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

M/S Mahavir Food Products versus Uco Bank

Gautam Kotwal versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

M S Home First Finance Company India Ltd. versus Dmi Housing Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Gagandeep Singh

Akash Musaddi Proprietor of Mittal Trading Co. versus Icici Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Sh. Kaloo Ram @ Om Parkash