Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Surjit Singh

DRT27 Apr 2026OA/30/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of ₹29,61,919.66p with interest under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993, against the respondent who failed to appear. The order authorised recovery via sale of mortgaged land and personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of ₹29,61,919.66p with interest. Recovery par one to be effectved by sale of mortgaged land and/or personal assets.

Punjab National Bank versus Surjit Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 30/2024 Date of Institution: 04.12.2023 Date of Decision: 27.04.2026

¶4

Punjab National Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Dhianpur, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Surjit Singh s/o Sh. Ram Singh, r/o H.No.346, Village Kotti Surat Malli, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶8

……….Defendant

¶9

Advocates

¶10

Mr. Iqbal Mohammad, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendant- ex parte vide order dated 04.10.2024 .

¶11

OA for the Recovery of ₹29,61,919.66p with interest @10.50% per annum with half-yearly rests from 04.12.2023.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

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 ₹29,61,919.66p with interest against Sh. Surjit Singh (defendant).

¶14

Bank’s case is that on 02.03.2012, it had granted a loan of ₹5.00 Lacs to defendant in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. Again on 13.08.2017, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹5.00Lacs to ₹18.00Lacs. To secure the loan, Defendant had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @10.50% per annum with half-yearly rests. Defendant had duly acknowledged his liability towards the debt on 25.11.2015, 12.07.2018 and 08.07.2021. On 02.03.2023, a sum of ₹29,61,919.66p was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶15

¶16

On 23.01.2024, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 04.10.2024, he was proceeded ex parte .

¶17

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Rohit Kumar, Authorized Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-18. 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 ₹18.00 Lacs and on 02.03.2023, a sum of ₹29,61,919.66p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹29,61,919.66p (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Sixty One Thousand Nine Hundred Nineteen and Paise Sixty Six Only) with interest @10.50% per annum with half-yearly rests from 04.12.2023, 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.

¶18

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Party is directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 29.05.2026, 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: 27.04.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶19

MANOJ KALRA

Punjab National Bank v. Surjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Surjit Singh

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

Union Bank of India versus S S T Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Bank of India versus Ms Box Well Industries

Bank of Maharashtra versus Chandrashekhar Pundlik Jagtap

Bank of Baroda versus Anushka Jain Proprietor Ms Ur Choice

Canara Bank versus Mr R Markondaiah

State Bank of India versus Kavitha. N