Allowed

Bank of India v. Sh. Sukhwinder Singh

DRT22 Jan 2026OA/589/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the Bank of India's application for recovery under Section 19 of the RDB Act. The court confirmed the debt principal and interest due, liable for one borrower and guarantors for specific components, and ordered a recovery certificate with a mandate for sale of mortgaged assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.20,26,336.24 with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; Direction to Recovery Officer to distribute proceeds from sale of mortgaged land.

Bank of India versus Sh. Sukhwinder 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: 589/2023 Date of Institution: 02.03.2023 Date of Decision: 22.01.2026

¶4

Bank of India having its branches all over India and a branch at Village Maur Mandi, Distt. Bathinda, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Sh. Sukhwinder Singh s/o Sh. Modan Singh, r/o H.No.13, Village Jatri, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda, Punjab.

¶8

Sh. Babu Singh s/o Sh. Maghar Singh, r/o H.No.128, Village Jatri, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda, Punjab.

¶9

Sh. Sukhwinder Singh s/o Sh. Gurbax Singh, r/o Village Jatri, Tehsil Maour Mandi, Distt. Bathinda, Punjab.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh. Lovedeep Kaur proxy counsel for Ms. Puja Sharma, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶13

Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 24.01.2025 .

¶14

OA for the Recovery of Rs.20,26,336.24p with interest @10.10% per annum with half-yearly rests from 02.03.2023.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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.20,26,336.24p with interest against Sh. Sukhwinder Singh and others (defendants).

¶17

Bank’s case is that on 21.03.2012, it had granted a loan of Rs.3.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for K.C.C. Limit of Rs.3.00 Lacs, vide deed of guarantee dated 21.03.2012. To secure the above said loan, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para

¶18

¶19

No.3A of the application). Again on 06.05.2013, at the request of the defendants, bank granted another loan of Rs.5.00 Lacs in the form of Overdraft Limit to defendant No.1 for agricultural purpose. Defendant No.3 stood guarantor for Agricultural Overdraft Limit of Rs.5.00 Lacs vide deed of guarantee dated 06.05.2013. To secure the above said loan, Defendant No.1 had extended charge over the mortgaged land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Both the loans were chargeable to interest @10.10% per annum with half-yearly rests. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 04.03.2015, 01.10.2015, 03.02.2016, 20.02.2018, 29.09.2018, 30.01.2021. On 24.01.2023, a sum of Rs.20,26,336.24p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶20

On 24.04.2023, 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 .

¶21

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Ved Prakash, Chief Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-25. 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 total loan of Rs.8.00 Lacs and on 24.01.2023, a sum of Rs.20,26,336.24p (Rs.6,03,055.53p in K.C.C. Limit and Rs.14,23,280.71p in Overdraft Limit) was due.

¶22

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.20,26,336.24p (Rupees Twenty Lacs Twenty Six Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Six and Paise Twenty Four Only) with interest @10.10%

¶23

¶24

per annum with half-yearly rests from 02.03.2023, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of defendant No.2 would be limited to clear the dues in K.C.C. Limit whereas the liability of defendant No.3 would be limited to clear the dues in the Overdraft Limit. The defendant No.1 would be liable for the whole decretal amount. 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 accordingly. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 25.02.2026, 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 parties. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 22.01.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Bank of India v. Sh. Sukhwinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Sh. Sukhwinder 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

Central Bank of India versus MD Rafikul Islam and Anr.

Punjab National Bank versus Oly Pramanik

Bank of Baroda versus M/s S.K. Enterprises

Indian Bank versus Mrs Sonal Rathi Proprietor of M/S Rathi Commodities and Ors.

Idbi Bank versus M/s Rahul Electric

Bank of India versus M/s Humara Pump Ram Janki