The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by YES Bank Limited against two respondents for recovery of a loan of Rs. 35 lakh. The court ruled in default, permitting recovery from hypothecated assets and fixing interest at 8% p.a.
Recovery of Rs. 35,11,197.47 plus simple interest @ 8% p.a. from hypothecated assets or personal assets.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 359/2026
PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 06.03.2026
DATE OF DECISION: 08.07.2026
YES Bank Limited, a banking company, carrying on the banking business under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its Registered Office at YES BANK House, Off Western Express Highway, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400055 and one of its branch offices amongst other places known as YES Bank Limited, situated at SCO No. 129-130, 2nd Floor, Sector 9C, Near CITCO Petrol Pump, Chandigarh-160009 through its Manager, Sh. Aashiv Bhayana.
……..Applicant
Versus
Advocates:
Argued by Sh. Sukhwinder Singh Chaudary, Advocate proxy for Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for applicant
None for Defendants (already ex parte vide order dated 29.04.2026)
FINAL ORDER
2 OA/ 359/2026 YES BANK VS SH. JATINDER KUMAR AND ANOTHER
| 2. The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants approached the |
|---|
| applicant for grant of ECLG Term Loan of Rs.6,06,047.00 against |
| hypothecation of used construction vehicle. Thereafter, Defendants approached the applicant for grant of Term |
| Loan of Rs.30.60 lac for purchase of construction equipment vide Loan |
| Application dated 09.02.2022, which isAnnexure A4to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.6,06,047.00 against hypothecation of used construction vehicle vide Sanction Letter dated |
| 22.12.2021, which isAnnexure A2to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Thereafter,the applicant sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.30.60 lac |
| for purchase of construction equipment vide Schedule Cum Key Fact |
| Statement dated 21.02.2022, which isAnnexure A5to this OA. |
| 4. Defendant no.1 hypothecated his construction equipment with details as under: |
| i. JCB 3DX bearing Engine no. H00276806, Chassis no. |
| HAR3DXSSL02877023. As per Affidavit of Sh. Aashiv Bhayana, Manager of the applicant, the hypothecated construction vehicle has not been registered with the Regional Transport Authority and Tax Invoice of the vehicle was filed on 06.07.2026 vide Dairy no. 12122. |
| ii. TATA Hitachi Ex 70 PRIME, bearing Engine no. KYX631874, Chassis no. PO70-20023 vide Tax Invoice, which isAnnexure A6 to this OA. |
| Documents executed: Supplementary Agreement dated 22.12.2021, |
| which isAnnexure A3to this OA; Recall Notice dated 23.09.2025, which isAnnexure A7to this OA; Foreclosure Letter dated 08.07.2025, which isAnnexure A8to this OA; Statement of Account along with |
| Certificate under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, which isAnnexure |
| A9to this OA; Foreclosure Letter dated 08.07.2025, which isAnnexure |
| A10to this OA; Statement of Account along with Certificate under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, which isAnnexure A11to this OA. |
| 5. The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA |
| and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts, there was a debit of Rs.35,11,197.47 (Rupees Thirty Five Lac Eleven Thousand |
| One Hundred Ninety Seven and Paise Forty Seven Only), which is |
| recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did |
3 OA/ 359/2026 YES BANK VS SH. JATINDER KUMAR AND ANOTHER
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 29.04.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Aashiv Bhayana, Manager, YES Bank Limited, h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A11 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities, which were granted to them. Defendants had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the applicant. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, both the accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.35,11,197.47 (Rupees Thirty Five Lac Eleven Thousand One Hundred Ninety Seven and Paise Forty Seven 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. 10. In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant has claimed interest @9.25%p.a. in Term Loan-I and @9.65% in Term Loan-II, with monthly rests from 09.07.2025 till the realization. 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 construction equipment, 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 @8.00% p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing
4 OA/ 359/2026 YES BANK VS SH. JATINDER KUMAR AND ANOTHER
of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.
12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.
(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)
Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant bank was entitled to recover the outstanding loan amount from the hypothecated construction equipment and personal assets of the respondents.
Whether the Tribunal could exercise its discretion to grant a uniform interest rate lower than the claimed rates.
Whether the application could be allowed in default when the respondents did not appear in court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
YES Bank Limited
Sh. Jatinder Kumar
Sh. Subh Karan
Mridulesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
