Allowed

Bank of India v. Sh. Manohar Singh

DRT29 Jan 2026OA/552/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Bank of India for recovery of Rs.1.12 Crore plus interest against two defendants, a mortgagor and a guarantor, upon an ex parte proceeding after failure to appear.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed for recovery of Rs.1,12,63,135/- with interest; recovery certificate issued; Recovery Officer directed to distribute proceeds of mortgaged land.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 552/2023 Date of Institution: 22.03.2023 Date of Decision: 29.01.2026

¶4

Bank of India having its branches all over India and a branch at Patara, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

¶7

Sh. Manohar Singh s/o Sh. Shankar Singh, r/o Village Sarmastpur, P.O. Bal, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶8

Sh. Gurdial Singh s/o Sh. Shankar Singh, r/o Village Sarmastpur, P.O. Bal, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Ms. Meena Malhotra, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 24.01.2025 . OA for the Recovery of Rs.1,12,63,135/- with interest @10.50% per annum with half-yearly rests from 22.03.2023.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Bank of India has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.1,12,63,135/- with interest against Sh. Manohar Singh and another (defendants).

¶14

Bank’s case is that on 09.07.2012, it had granted a loan of Rs.60.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor vide guarantee agreement dated 09.07.2012, (Annexure A-13). The loan was chargeable to interest @10.50% per annum with half-yearly rests. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 13.04.2015, 09.04.2018, 26.03.2021, 24.04.2021. On 20.01.2023, a sum of Rs.1,12,63,135/- was due from the

¶15

¶16

defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.
3. On 18.04.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by
registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 24.01.2025, they were proceeded_ex_ parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the
affidavit of Sh. Rajan Malhan, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-21.
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
Rs.60.00 Lacs and on 20.01.2023, a sum of Rs.1,12,63,135/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of
Rs.1,12,63,135/- (Rupees One Crore Twelve Lacs Sixty Three Thousand
One Hundred Thirty Five Only) with interest @10.50% per annum with
half-yearly rests from 22.03.2023, till the date of payment is hereby
allowed with costs. The liability of both the defendants would be joint
and several. 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 defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on
05.03.2026,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.

¶17

¶18

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: 29.01.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Bank of India v. Sh. Manohar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Sh. Manohar 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

Icici Bank Limited versus Abhishek Pratap

Central Bank of India versus M/S Maheshwari Ayurvedic Stores

Icici Bank Limited versus Sadiya

Central Bank of India versus Atul Kumar Tiwari S/O Shri Dinesh Prasad Sharma

Bank of India versus Praneeta

Shivani Traders versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited