Allowed

Federal Bank v. Mr. Sajjan Dhingra

DRT25 Aug 2026OA/238/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Federal Bank Limited under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of Rs.24,34,468.89p with interest against a defendant who failed to appear, directing recovery from hypothecated stocks and personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.24,34,468.89p with interest at 15.40% per annum from 30.01.2025, recoverable from hypothecated stocks and personal property. Recovery certificate to be issued.

Federal Bank versus Mr. Sajjan Dhingra — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 238/2025 Date of Institution: 30.01.2025 Date of Decision: 25.08.2026

¶4

The Federal Bank Limited, B/u SCО 34, Ground Floor, B-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar (Punjab).

¶5

...Applicant Vs.

¶6

Mr. Sajjan Dhingra S/o Sh. Deepak Kumar, self and being Proprietor of Proprietorship Firm M/s S.S Dhingra Enterprises at 1270-1271, Roop Nagar, Amritsar, Punjab 143005. Also, at: HM 49, Aman Avenue o/s Gate Hakima, Amritsar, Punjab 143001.

¶7

…Defendants

¶8

Advocates

¶9

Sh. S.C. Prajapati proxy counsel for Sh. Nitin Grover, Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶10

Defendants – ex parte.

¶11

OA for the Recovery of Rs.24,34,468.89p with interest @15.40% per annum with monthly rests from 30.01.2025. ORDER

¶12

On 30.01.2025, The Federal Bank Limited filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.24,34,468.89p with interest against Mr. Sajjan Dhingra (defendant).

¶13

Bank’s case is that on 21.06.2023, it had granted a loan of Rs.25lacs to the defendant in the form of C.C. Limit for business purpose. To secure the limit, Defendant had hypothecated Stocks (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The limit was chargeable to interest @15.40% per annum with monthly rests. On 30.01.2025, a sum of Rs.24,34,468.89p was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶14

¶15

On 17.02.2025, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 13.10.2025, defendant was proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Santosh Kumar Gupta, Authorized Officer, along with the loan and security documents. 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 a CC Limit of Rs.25Lacs and on 30.01.2025 a sum of Rs.24,34,468.89p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.24,34,468.89p (Rupees Twenty-Four Lacs Thirty-Four Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Eight and Paise Eighty-Nine Only) with interest @15.40% per annum with monthly rests from 30.01.2025, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated Stocks (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. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 28.09.2026 . 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: 25.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh HARSH

Federal Bank v. Mr. Sajjan Dhingra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Federal Bank v. Mr. Sajjan Dhingra

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

Rajinder Kaur Chhabra versus Aavas Financiers Limited

Karur Vysya Bank versus Singh Communication

State Bank of India versus Vijay Naithani and Ors.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Sumit Ornament House

Union Bank of India versus Sh Raman Sharma and Ors.

Hdfc Bank versus Lakhwinder Kaur