Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Sh. Taranjeet Singh

DRT25 May 2026OA/191/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application under Section 19 RDB Act for recovery of dues amounting to over Rs. 1 crore. The tribunal adjusted the claimed interest rate to 8% per annum and ordered execution against hypothecated assets or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Declared defendant liable to pay Rs.1,03,96,144.37 with costs and simple interest @08.00%p.a. Recovery order directed against hypothecated and personal assets.

Bank of Baroda versus Sh. Taranjeet Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.191/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 31.01.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 25.05.2026

¶6

Bank Of Baroda, A Body Corporate Constituted under The Banking Companies (Acquisition And Transfer Of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at Mandvi, Vadodara - 390007, Gujarat, India and its Corporate Office at C-26, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 and one of its Branches At Sector 17B, Chandigarh through its duly constituted Attorney Holder Sh. Mayank Kumar, Chief Manager and Authorized Officer.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Taran Jeet Singh S/o Sh. Ravinderpal Singh, Permanent Residential Address: House No.26, The Mall Road, Yadvindra Colony, Patiala, Punjab-147001.

¶10

Business/Office Address: Same as Residential Address.

¶11

……..Defendant

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Ms. Parul, Advocate proxy for Sh. Iqbal Mohammed, Advocate for the applicant

¶14

None for Defendant (Already ex-parte vide order dated 21.05.2026).

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.1,03,96,144.37 (Rupees One Crore Three Lakh Ninety Six Thousand One Hundred Forty Four and Paise Thirty Seven Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Mayank Kumar, Chief Manager and Authorized Officer, of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 29.10.2021, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

2 OA NO.191/2026 BANK OF BARODA VS SH. TARANJEET SINGH

¶18

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan facilities for purchase of two commercial vehicles of Rs.96,00,000.00 vide Application Form dated 29.06.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan facilities for purchase of two commercial vehicles of Rs.96,00,000.00 vide sanction letter dated 29.06.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant hypothecated his Moveable Assets i.e., i. Vehicle 1: Mahindra and Mahindra Blazo 55 6X4 with trailer B56, bearing Registration No. PB11DH7707, Engine No. VHRZE13451, Chassis No. MA1VDARQFR6E78978, ii. Vehicle 2: Mahindra and Mahindra Blazo 55 6X4 with trailer B56, bearing Registration No. PB11DH8607; Engine No. VHRZE13447; Chassis No. MA1VDARGFR6E78977, vide virtual Registration certificates, which are Annexures A10 & A11 to this OA. Documents executed : Demand Promissory Note, Loan cum Hypothecation cum Guarantee Agreement, Letter of installment with acceleration clause, Letter of Authority to make payment directly to the dealers, Declaration cum Undertaking cum Authority, Letter of Undertaking, all dated 29.06.2024, which are Annexures A4 to A9 to this OA; Demand Notice U/s 13(2) dated 03.05.2025 along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A12 to this OA; Statement of Accounts along with certificate, which is Annexure A13 to A15 to this OA. 5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts, there was a debit of Rs.1,03,96,144.37, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶19

3 OA NO.191/2026 BANK OF BARODA VS SH. TARANJEET SINGH

¶20

The defendant was served summons to appear before this Tribunal, but no one appeared on behalf of the defendant and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.05.2026.

¶21

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Mayank Kumar, Chief Manager and Authorized Officer, Bank of Baroda has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶22

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.

¶23

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A15 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities, which were granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendant 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.1,03,96,144.37 (Rupees One Crore Three Lakh Ninety Six Thousand One Hundred Forty Four and Paise Thirty Seven Only), along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount. 10. In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.65%p.a. with monthly rests with penal interest @2.00%p.a. till the realization.

¶24

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 hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendant, 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 simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both the

¶25

¶26

OA NO.191/2026

¶27

BANK OF BARODA VS SH. TARANJEET SINGH

¶28

loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶29

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.1,03,96,144.37 (Rupees One Crore Three Lakh Ninety Six Thousand One Hundred Forty Four and Paise Thirty Seven Only), 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 hypothecated vehicles of the defendant 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 defendant. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶30

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 16.06.2026.

¶33

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendant through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶34

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶35

Dated: 25.05.2026

¶36

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶37

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Bank of Baroda v. Sh. Taranjeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Sh. Taranjeet 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

Union Bank of India versus Messrs Honey Enterprises

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/s Geomovers Infra Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Honey Singh

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/s Ajmer Fuelogic Pvt. Ltd.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Karam Singh

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Kartar Singh