Allowed

Yes Bank Ltd. v. Sh. Ramandeep Singh and Another

DRT29 Jul 2026OA/348/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Yes Bank Ltd. to recover a overdue agricultural loan against two defendants. The court affirmed the bank's claim, granted uniform interest, and directed issuance of a recovery certificate and future attachment rights.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 47,95,685.25 plus costs and simple interest at 7% p.a., issuance of recovery certificate, and liberty to enforce via sale of mortgaged property or attachment of assets.

Yes Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Ramandeep Singh and Another — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.348/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 05.03.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 29.07.2026

¶6

Yes Bank Ltd., Registered Office at Yes Bank House, Off Western Express Highway, Santacurz (E) Mumbai – 400055. Yes Bank Ltd., Northern Regional Corporate Office at SCO 129-130, Madhya Marg, Sector - 9 C, Chandigarh, having its Branch Office at Malout, Distrit Muktsar Punjab through its Attorney Holder Sh. Aashiv Bhayana.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Ramandeep Singh S/o Sh. Bachiter Singh, R/o H No. 79, Danewala Satkosi, P.O. Denewala, District Fazilka, Punjab152128.

¶10

Ms. Harseerat Kaur C/o Sh. ManinderJeet Singh, R/o Bir Behman, District Bathinda, Punjab – 151001.

¶11

…….. Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Amit Rishi, Advocate for the applicant

¶14

None for defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 27.07.2026).

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.47,95,685.25 (Rupees Forty Seven Lacs Ninety Five Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five and Paise Twenty Five Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Aashiv Bhayana, Attorney Holder of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 28.03.2025, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants approached the applicant for grant of Kisan Credit Card Limit of Rs.54,00,000.00 vide

¶18

2 OA NO.348/2026 YES BANK LTD. VS SH. RAMANDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶19

Yes Kisan Credit Card Application Form dated 24.05.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶20

The applicant sanctioned the Kisan Credit Card Limit of Rs.3,00,000.00 against Cash Credit Limit and Rs.43,30,000.00 against Over Draft Limit vide Facility Letter and Most Important Terms and Conditions dated 25.06.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants . 4. Defendant no.1 mortgaged his Immovable Property i.e., Agricultural Land measuring 121K 07M situated at Village Danewala Satkoshi, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka as per Jamabandi for the year 2021-22, vide Declaration u/s 4(1) and Request Letter for registering of charge in the revenue records, both dated 27.06.2024, which is Annexure A7 to this OA. Documents executed: Agreement for Cash Credit/Overdraft Facility cum Hypothecation cum Guarantee, Deed of Undertaking, Debit Authorization, all dated 25.06.2024, which are Annexures A4 to A6 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 12.12.2025, along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Statement of Accounts along with and certificates, which are Annexures A9 & A10 to this OA. 5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts there was a debit of Rs.47,95,685.25, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices 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 but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.07.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Aashiv Bhayana, Attorney Holder , Yes Bank Ltd. has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶21

3 OA NO.348/2026 YES BANK LTD. VS SH. RAMANDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶22

It was argued by learned counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶23

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A10 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of loan facilities which were granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, loan accounts were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.47,95,685.25 (Rupees Forty Seven Lacs Ninety Five Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five and Paise Twenty Five 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.

¶24

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @7.00%p.a. with half yearly rests in Cash Credit Limit and interest @15.50%p.a. with half yearly rests in Overdraft Limit, till the realization.

¶25

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 mortgaged property, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loans 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 uniform simple interest @7.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶26

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant sum of Rs.47,95,685.25

¶27

¶28

OA NO.348/2026 YES BANK LTD. VS SH. RAMANDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶29

(Rupees Forty Seven Lacs Ninety Five Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Five and Paise Twenty Five Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @7.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts 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 property of defendant no. 1 i n 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.

¶30

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of .

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 13.08.2026.

¶33

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.

¶34

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶35

Dated: 29.07.2026

¶36

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶37

Presiding Officer,

¶38

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Yes Bank Ltd. v. Sh. Ramandeep Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank Ltd. v. Sh. Ramandeep 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

Bank of India versus Sh. Davinder Singh and Others

Axis Bank Limited versus Sh. Malkeet Singh and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Shiv Om Knit Fabs and Others

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Satnam Singh

Canara Bank versus M/S Radha and Co.

Capital Small Finance Bank Limited versus Sh. Mantar Ram and Others