Allowed

Canara Bank v. Satwinder Singh

DRT19 May 2026OA/574/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of ₹30.36 lakhs with interest against the respondents, who failed to appear. The court ordered recovery from both mortgaged land and personal assets and issued a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹30,36,041/- with interest @12.15% per annum with half-yearly rests from 14.03.2023 till the date of payment allowed. Recovery Certificate issued.

Canara Bank versus Satwinder Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 574/2023 Date of Institution: 14.03.2023 Date of Decision: 19.05.2026

¶4

Canara Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Kot Fatuhi, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Satwinder Singh s/o Sh. Mohan Lal, r/o Panjaur, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

¶8

Harjinder Singh s/o Sh. Malkiat Singh, r/o VPO Kot Fatuhi, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Sh. KAK Davesar, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 16.01.2025 .

¶12

OA for the Recovery of ₹30,36,041/- with interest @12.15% per annum with half-yearly rests from 14.03.2023.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Canara Bank has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹30,36,041/- with interest against Sh. Satwinder Singh and another (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 30.08.2016, it had granted a loan of ₹20.00 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. The loan was chargeable to interest @12.15% per annum with half-yearly rests. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 04.05.2019 and 06.04.2022. On 10.03.2023, a sum

¶16

¶17

of ₹30,36,041/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.
3. On 20.04.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by
registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 16.01.2025, they were proceeded_ex_ parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the
affidavit of Ms. Shagun Rana, Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-13.
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 ₹20.00 Lacs and on 10.03.2023, a sum of ₹30,36,041/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of
₹30,36,041/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Forty One Only)
with interest @12.15% per annum with half-yearly rests from
14.03.2023, 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
23.06.2026,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.

¶18

¶19

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: 19.05.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Canara Bank v. Satwinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Satwinder 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

State Bank of India versus Sri Subir Chatterjee

State Bank of India versus Sri Ganesh Barman

Ms Khan Brothers Ginning and Pressing Through its Authorized Signatory Mr. Ejas Khan Yunus Khan versus State Bank of India

Prabhjit Singh versus Hindu Cooperative Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M S Advance Associate

Harinder Singh versus Punjab and Sind Bank