Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. M/S Geeta Fruits and Vegetables

DRT4 Jul 2026OA/1845/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal adjudicated an application by Punjab National Bank for the recovery of Rs. 51.52 lakhs with interest. The Tribunal accepted the bank's evidence, ordered repayment with interest, defined joint and several liability for certain defendants, and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 51,52,484/- with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; Joint and several liability imposed on defendants 1, 2, 4, and 5.

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Geeta Fruits and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1845/2022 Date of Institution: 01.09.2022 Date of Decision: 04.07.2026

¶4

Punjab National Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Bye Pass Road, Solan, Tehsil and District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Geeta Fruits & Vegetables, Chanta Niwas Oochghat, Zeropoint, Solan, Tehsil and District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, a proprietorship concern through its proprietor Smt. Geeta w/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh Jagithta.

¶8

Smt. Geeta w/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh Jagithta, r/o Gupta Niwas, Hospital Road, Solan, Tehsil and District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

¶9

Tulsi Ram s/o Sh. Saweer Dass, r/o Village Thana (Baradhar), Post Office Tikkar, Tehsil Rohru, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, since deceased and now representing through his following Class-I Legal Heirs: -

¶10

a) Smt. Garibi Devi w/o Late Sh. Tulsi Ram, r/o Village Thana (Baradhar), Post Office Tikkar, Tehsil Rohru, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

¶11

b) Bhagwan Singh Jagithta s/o Late Sh. Tulsi Ram, r/o Ward No.9, Gupta Niwas, Hospital Road, Solan, Tehsil and District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

¶12

c) Balwan Singh s/o Late Sh. Tulsi Ram, r/o Village Thana (Baradhar), Post Office Tikkar, Tehsil Rohru, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

¶13

d) Ravinder Singh s/o Late Sh. Tulsi Ram, r/o Village Thana (Baradhar), Post Office Tikkar, Tehsil Rohru, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

¶14

e) Ms. Sundra d/o Late Sh. Tulsi Ram, r/o Village Thana (Baradhar), Post Office Tikkar, Tehsil Rohru, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

¶15

Rakesh Jinta s/o Sh. Shiv Lal, r/o Village Sajar D.P.F. Pujarli, Tehsil Rohru, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

¶16

¶17

Chiranjit Bhardwaj s/o Sh. Ram Dutt, r/o Shiv Kutir, Rajgarh Road, Shamli, Solan, Tehsil and District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

¶18

……….Defendants

¶19

Advocates

¶20

Sh. D.K. Gupta, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶21

Sh. Vivek Verma, Counsel for Defendants for Defendant nos. 1, 2, 3(a) to 3 (c) and 3(e)

¶22

Defendant nos. 3 (d), 4 and 5 - ex parte vide order dated 18.05.2026.

¶23

OA for the Recovery of ₹51,52,484/- with interest @8.20% per annum with monthly rests from 01.09.2022.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Punjab National Bank has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹51,52,484/- with interest against M/s Geeta Fruits & Vegetables and others (defendants).

¶26

Bank’s case is that on 20.10.2018, it had granted a loan of ₹40.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor defendant No.2 for Business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had hypothecated assets and defendant No.3 (since deceased now survived through his legal heirs i.e. defendant Nos.3a to 3e) mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant Nos.3 to 5 stood as guarantors for the aforementioned loan facility amounting to ₹40.00 Lacs vide various Agreements of Guarantee dated 22.10.2018. The loan was chargeable to interest @8.20% per annum with monthly rests. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 20.10.2021. On 29.08.2022, a sum of ₹51,52,484/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶27

¶28

On 15.09.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendant nos. 3(d), 4 and 5 did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 18.05.2026, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶29

3A. On 13.03.2024, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement in which they have alleged that the OA is misconceived and abuse of the process of law; the applicant bank has not attached all the necessary documents in support of tis claim; bank officers are guilty of mala fide standards; application has not been signed, verified and instituted by duly authorized and competent person. Sh. Armaan Lovras, Senior Manager, is not the Principal Officer of the bank and he is also not authorized and competent person to file the OA on behalf of bank; the documents relied upon by the bank are not correct; the bank has charged exorbitant rate of interest; the statements of accounts are not proper; the bank has failed to disclose the fact with the regard to amount due, date of NPA as well as calculation of interest and even failed to place on record the documents in this regard. Hence, the OA be dismissed.

¶30

3B. On 22.10.2024, the defendants were summoned for the purpose of admission and denial. The defendant nos. 1, 2, 3(a) to 3 (c) and 3(e) perused the documents and raised objections – Exhibit A-1, 2 and 10 are not in original and admitted the signatures on the remaining documents but denied their contents. On 17.02.2025, defendants were summoned for admission and denial of Exhibit A-1, 2 and 10 and they were perused and admitted the signatures but denied the contents.

¶31

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Armaan Lovras, Senior Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-14.

¶32

¶33

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 ₹40.00 Lacs and on 29.08.2022, a sum of ₹51,52,484/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹51,52,484/- (Rupees Fifty One Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Four Only) with interest @8.20% per annum with monthly rests from 01.09.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of defendant nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 would be joint and several. The liability of the legal heirs of defendant No.3 would be limited to the extent of the property(ies) inherited by them from Sh. Tulsi Ram. 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.1,2,4 and 5 accordingly. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 06.08.2026, 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 . 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: 04.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Punjab National Bank v. M/S Geeta Fruits and Vegetables

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. M/S Geeta Fruits and Vegetables

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

Manjunath Tradar versus Canara Bank

Canara Bank versus M/S Travel Easy

Icici Bank Limited versus Murali

Hdfc Bank versus Farooq Ahmad Bhat

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Gopi Traders

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Bhagwant Singh