Allowed

Bank of India v. Sh. Pargat Singh and Another

DRT3 Jun 2026OA/258/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application under the RDB Act, 1993, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of India's claim for recovery of Rs. 1.04 crores from borrowers and guarantors, granting simple interest at 8% p.a. pending suit instead of the claimed rate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 1,04,15,256.00 plus costs and simple interest at 8% p.a. from the date of filing; Issuance of Recovery Certificate under RDB Act and SARFAESI Act.

Bank of India versus Sh. Pargat Singh and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 258/2023

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 09.01.2023

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 03.06.2026

¶6

Bank of India, a Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act no. V of 1970, having its Head Office at “Star House”, C 5, Block G, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400051 and Branch Office amongst other places at Kapurthala, Punjab through its duly Constituted Attorney, Sh. Ashok Kumar, presently posted as Chief Manager at Garha Branch, Jalandhar, Punjab

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Pargat Singh, S/o Sh. Jeet Singh, R/o Village Sidhpur, PO Ahmedpur, District Kapurthala, Punjab- 144601

¶10

Sh. Santokh Singh, S/o Sh. Gurdas Singh, R/o Village Baler

¶11

Khanpur, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, Punjab- 144601

¶12

…Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Ms. Meena Malhotra, Advocate for applicant

¶15

Sh. Chirag Bhagat, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for defendants

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,04,15,256.00 (Rupees

¶18

One Crore Four Lacs Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Six Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Ashok Kumar, Chief Manager of the applicant , who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 10.06.2020, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶19

2 OA/258/2023 BANK OF INDIA VS. PARGAT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶20

2. The brief facts of the OA are that defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs. 45.00 Lacs vide Loan
Application dated 17.09.2009, which isAnnexure A2to this OA.
Thereafter, defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for additional
KCC Limit of Rs. 35.00 Lacs to the existing KCC Limit of Rs. 45.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 04.12.2010, which isAnnexure A12to
this OA.
3. The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs. 45.00 Lacs vide
Sanction Letter dated 09.11.2009, which isAnnexure A4to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.
Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned additional KCC Limit of Rs. 15.00
Lacs to the existing KCC Limit of Rs. 45.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter
dated 12.01.2011, which isAnnexure A13to this OA. Defendant no.
2 stood as guarantor.
4. Defendant no. 1 mortgaged his immovable properties which are: i. Land measuring 26K 08M situated at Village Sidhpur, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, Punjab and 13K 09M situated at Village Jallo Bhatti, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, Punjab vide Mortgage Deed bearing vasika no. 3390 dated 22.10.2009 along with its translation, which isAnnexure A3to this OA;
ii. Land measuring 23K 01M situated at Village Sidhpur, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, Punjab and 09K 11M situated at Village Jallo Bhatti, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, Punjab vide Mortgage Deed bearing vasika no. 4799 dated 12.01.2011 along with its translation, which isAnnexure A14to this OA.
Documents executed: DP Note, Bearer Letter, Agreement of Loan
cum Hypothecation, Consolidated/Multipurpose Stamp Undertaking,
Miscellaneous Declarations and Deed of Guarantee, all dated
09.11.2009, which areAnnexure A5 to A11to this OA; DP Note,
Bearer Letter, Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation, Supplementary
Agreement, Consolidated/Multipurpose Stamp Undertaking,
Miscellaneous Declarations, Deed of Guarantee and Acknowledgment

¶21

3 OA/258/2023 BANK OF INDIA VS. PARGAT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶22

of Debt, all dated 25.01.2011, which are Annexure A15 to A24 to this OA; Acknowledgments of Debt dated 24.07.2013, 11.10.2013, 30.03.2016, 24.01.2019 and 14.01.2022, which are Annexure A25 to A27, A30 and A34 to this OA; MCLR Agreement dated 08.11.2016, which is Annexure A28 to this OA; Agreement dated 04.12.2017, which is Annexure A29 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 20.09.2021 along with postal receipts, which are Annexure A31 to A33 to this OA; Recall Notice dated 17.12.2022 along with postal receipts, which are Annexure A35 to A37 to this OA and Statement of Account, which is Annexure A38 to this OA.

¶23

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, there was a debit of Rs. 1,04,15,256.00, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notice but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal and after service upon defendants, Sh. Sachin Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendant no. 1 on 13.05.2024 and filed POA. Paper book was supplied to him. WS on behalf of defendants was filed on 01.08.2024 i.e. beyond stipulated time. WS was taken on record subject to payment of cost. Thereafter, the process of admission or denial of documents was completed on 30.08.2025.

¶24

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kumar, Chief Manager , Bank of India has been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant had proved its case. It was further argued that there is no concrete defense in the WS as well as only objections raised by defendants regarding rate of interest which was duly conveyed to the defendants at the time of

¶25

4 OA/258/2023 BANK OF INDIA VS. PARGAT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶26

sanctioning of loan. Learned proxy counsel for defendants argued that the documents were in English language, therefore defendants could not understand the rate of interest and only then applicant informed rate of interest in Punjabi language. It was further submitted that lenient view may be taken at the time of decree and prayed for granting of simple rate of interest. No other argument was advanced by learned proxy counsel for defendants.

¶27

From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A38 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no. 1 approached applicant for availing of the loan facility, which was granted to him. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor. Defendants had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, the account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1,04,15,256.00 (Rupees One Crore Four Lacs Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Six Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶28

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in clause V para 29. has claimed interest @9.80%p.a. plus @2% penal interest with half yearly rests from the date of institution of the application till the realization.

¶29

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/mortgaged properties, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan 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

¶30

¶31

OA/258/2023 BANK OF INDIA VS. PARGAT SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶32

@08.00% p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶33

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.1,04,15,256.00 (Rupees One Crore Four Lacs Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Six Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00% p.a. in the loan account 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 mortgaged properties of defendant no. 1 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 defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶34

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 24.06.2026. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 03.06.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Bank of India v. Sh. Pargat Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Sh. Pargat Singh and Another

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sanjay and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Vishkarma Roadways and Others

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Sh. Inderjit Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus Sh. GURDHian Singh

Capital Small Finance Bank Limited versus Sh. Pipal Singh and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Parminder Jeet Singh