Allowed

Bank of India v. Harpreet Singh

DRT20 May 2026OA/1845/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT-I, Chandigarh allowed the Bank of India's OA for recovery of ₹25,51,060/-plus interest against defendants who failed to repay a loan. The liability was held joint and several, and the recovery officer was directed to distribute proceeds from the sale of mortgaged land.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹25,51,060/- with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; Property sale proceeds distribution directed.

Bank of India versus Harpreet Singh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1845/2023 Date of Institution: 26.10.2023 Date of Decision: 20.05.2026

¶4

Bank of India having its branches all over India and a branch at G.T. Road, Near DK Petrol Pump, Bhogpur Branch, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mr. Harpreet Singh s/o Sh. Jaswinder Singh, r/o. Village Tandi, PO Laroya, Distt. Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶8

Mr. Iqbal Singh s/o Sh. Jagat Singh, r/o Village Tandi, PO Laroya, Distt. Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Sh. M.N. Sharma through VC, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 24.07.2024 .

¶12

OA for the Recovery of ₹25,51,060/- with interest @11.25% per annum with half-yearly rests from 26.10.2023.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Bank of India has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹25,51,060/- with interest against Mr. Harpreet Singh and another (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 12.06.2015, it had granted a loan of ₹15.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor. The loan was chargeable to interest @11.25% per annum with half-yearly rests. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 28.05.2018 and 18.03.2021. On 11.10.2023, a sum

¶16

¶17

of ₹25,51,060/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.
3. On 16.11.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by
registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 24.07.2024, they were proceeded_ex_ parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the
affidavit of Sh. Anil Kumar Gera, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-17.
5. 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 ₹15.00 Lacs and on 11.10.2023, a sum of ₹25,51,060/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of
₹25,51,060/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Fifty One Thousand Sixty Only)
with interest @11.25% per annum with half-yearly rests from
26.10.2023, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The
liability of both the defendants would be joint and several. 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 defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on
24.06.2026,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.

¶18

¶19

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: 20.05.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Bank of India v. Harpreet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Harpreet 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