Allowed

Bank of India v. Sh. Surendra Kumar @ Surinder Kumar

DRT19 Feb 2026OA/225/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex parte application filed under Section 19 RDB Act, 1993 for recovery of dues on a ₹15 Lacs loan facility, the Presiding Officer allowed the bank's claim. The court decreed the amount, adjudicated the liability of the borrower and guarantors, and directed the sale of mortgaged land and issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹23,54,138/- with interest, sale of mortgaged land, and issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

Bank of India versus Sh. Surendra Kumar @ Surinder Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 225/2024 Date of Institution: 01.01.2024 Date of Decision: 19.02.2026

¶4

Bank of India having its branches all over India and a branch at Fazilka Tehsil and District Fazilka, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Sh. Surendra Kumar @ Surinder Kumar s/o Sh. Pohla Ram resident of Village Korainwali Tehsil and District Fazilka, Punjab.

¶8

Sh. Baldev Raj s/o Sh. Pohla Ram resident of Village Korainwali Tehsil and District Fazilka, Punjab.

¶9

Sh. Virender Kumar s/o Sh. Baldev Raj resident of Village Korainwali Tehsil and District Fazilka, Punjab.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Ms. Lovedeep Kaur proxy counsel for Sh. Pankaj Beri, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶13

Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 01.09.2025 .

¶14

OA for the Recovery of ₹23,54,138/- with interest @13% per annum with half-yearly rests from 01.01.2024.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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 ₹23,54,138/- with interest against Sh. Surendra Kumar @ Surinder Kumar and others (defendants).

¶17

Bank’s case is that on 07.11.2012, it had granted a loan of ₹5.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stood as guarantors for the above said K.C.C. Limit vide deed of guarantee dated 12.11.2012. Again on 15.01.2016, at the request of the defendants, applicant bank granted

¶18

¶19

AGOD Limit of Rs.10.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 for agricultural purpose. Defendant No. 3 stood as guarantor for the A.G.O.D. Limit. To secure both the loan facilities, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his agricultural land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loans were chargeable to interest @13% per annum with half-yearly rests. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 11.06.2015, 06.06.2018, 28.12.2018 and 04.06.2021. On 30.11.2023, a sum of ₹23,54,138/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶20

On 22.02.2024, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 01.09.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶21

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

¶22

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 30.11.2023, a sum of ₹23,54,138/- (₹7,46,334/- in K.C.C. and ₹16,07,804/- in A.G.O.D. Limit) was due.

¶23

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹23,54,138/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Fifty Four Thousand One Hundred Thirty Eight Only) with interest @13% per annum with halfyearly rests from 01.01.2024, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of defendant No. 2 would be limited to clear the dues in K.C.C. Limit whereas the liability of defendant Nos.1 and 3 would be joint and several for the whole decretal amount. Bank can

¶24

¶25

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 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 01.04.2026, 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 parties. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 19.02.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶26

MANOJ KALRA

Bank of India v. Sh. Surendra Kumar @ Surinder Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Sh. Surendra Kumar @ Surinder Kumar

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

Bank of India versus Sh. Dalip Singh @ Daleep Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Manimahesh Motor Works Pvt. Ltd.

Federal Bank versus Priyanka Saha and Anr.

Jagmohan Ladhar versus M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Baltar Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Beer Singh