Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Smt. Gurmit Kaur

DRT17 Mar 2026OA/1988/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of ₹20,78,104/- principal and interest against the defendant, who failed to appear. The court directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate and sale of mortgaged assets by the Recovery Officer.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹20,78,104/- with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; sale of mortgaged land directed.

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Gurmit Kaur — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1988/2024 Date of Institution: 24.09.2024 Date of Decision: 17.03.2026

¶4

Punjab National Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Rasulpur Kalan, Amritsar, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Smt. Gurmit Kaur w/o Sh. Karam Singh, r/o Village Deshmesh Nagar, Tehsil Tersikka, District Amritsar, Punjab.

¶8

……….Defendant

¶9

Advocates

¶10

Sh. Lovish proxy counsel for Sh. Kuldeep Bawa, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶11

Defendant- ex parte vide order dated 16.07.2025 .

¶12

OA for the Recovery of ₹20,78,104/- with interest @10.30% per annum with half-yearly rests from 24.09.2024.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

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 ₹20,78,104/- with interest against Smt. Gurmit Kaur (defendant).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 13.03.2013, it had granted a loan of ₹11.70Lacs to defendant in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant had mortgaged her agricultural land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @10.30% per annum with half-yearly rests. Defendant had duly acknowledged her liability towards the debt on 11.04.2016, 31.07.2018, 28.07.2022 and 26.07.2024. On 15.04.2024, a sum of ₹20,78,104/- was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶16

¶17

On 10.01.2025, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 16.07.2025, she was proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Amit Anand, Senior Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-16. 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 ₹11.70Lacs and on 15.04.2024, a sum of ₹20,78,104/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹20,78,104/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand One Hundred Four Only) with interest @10.30% per annum with half-yearly rests from 24.09.2024, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. 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. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Party is directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 24.04.2026, 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 party. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 17.03.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Punjab National Bank v. Smt. Gurmit Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Smt. Gurmit Kaur

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

State Bank of India versus Partha Chakraborty and Ors.

Sri Dorai Swamy versus Shimsha Sahakari Bank Niyamithsa

Mr Manjunath B versus Bank of India

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Mohammad Afzal Sheikh

State Bank of India versus M/S Anurag Foods, a Proprietary Concern, Acting through Its Proprietor Ahri Anurag Rakesh Jagiya

Sri. v. Benjamin versus State Bank of India