Allowed

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Jagdees Kaur

DRT20 May 2026OA/228/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of a defaulting loan of Rs. 20 lakcs against mortgaged land deposited by the borrower and for the guarantor, proceeding ex parte after defendants failed to appear.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 26,57,092/- with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; Sale of mortgaged land ordered.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Jagdees Kaur — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 228/2023

¶4

Date of Institution: 24.11.2022 Date of Decision: 20.05.2026

¶5

Punjab and Sind Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Kotli Surat Malhi, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Jagdees Kaur w/o Sh. Amarjeet Singh, r/o Village Machhana, Tehsil Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶9

Gursharanjit Singh s/o Sh. Dalbeer Singh, r/o Village Machhana, Tehsil Kalanaur, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Ms. Neha Arora proxy counsel for Sh. HKL Talwar, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶13

Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 10.01.2025 .

¶14

OA for the Recovery of ₹26,57,092/- with interest @12.95% per annum with half-yearly rests from 24.11.2022.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Punjab and Sind Bank has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹26,57,092/- with interest against Smt. Jagdees Kaur and another (defendants).

¶17

Bank’s case is that on 21.11.2019, it had granted a loan of ₹20.00 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 her land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor. The loan was chargeable to interest @12.95% per annum with half-yearly rests. On 24.09.2022, a sum of ₹26,57,092/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶18

¶19

On 23.02.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 10.01.2025, they were proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Naveen Kumar, Senior Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-20. 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 ₹20.00 Lacs and on 24.09.2022, a sum of ₹26,57,092/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹26,57,092/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Ninety Two Only) with interest @12.95% per annum with half-yearly rests from 24.11.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all 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 . 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: 20.05.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Jagdees Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Jagdees 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

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