Allowed

Bank of India v. Sh. Davinder Singh and Others

DRT28 Jul 2026OA/624/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 1.17 crore against borrowers and guarantors. The court adjudicated interest rates and directed recovery via sale of mortgaged property or attachment of assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 1,17,35,705.00 with costs and interest @8.00% p.a.; recovery via sale of mortgaged property or attachment of personal assets.

Bank of India versus Sh. Davinder Singh and Others — Money Laundering | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 624/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 09.04.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 28.07.2026

¶6

Bank of India, a Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act no. V of 1970 having its Head Office at “Star House”, C 5, Block G, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 and Branch Office amongst other places at Khanna, District Ludhiana, Punjab through Sh. Suresh Kumar, Chief Manager, Principal Officer cum duly Constituted Attorney

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Davinder Singh, S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh, R/o Village Bhambri, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab147301

¶10

Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh, S/o Sh. Davinder Singh, R/o Village Bhambri, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab147301

¶11

Sh. Jaswinder Singh, S/o Sh. Lal Singh, since expired through his Legal Heirs as under:

¶12

A. Smt. Sarabjit Kaur, W/o Sh. Jaswinder Singh, R/o Village Bhambri, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab147301

¶13

B. Sh. Harpreet Singh, S/o Sh. Jaswinder Singh, R/o Village Bhambri, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab- 147301

¶14

…Defendants

¶15

Advocates:

¶16

Argued by Sh. Anil Malhotra, Advocate proxy for Ms. Meena Malhotra, Advocate for applicant

¶17

None for defendant nos. 1, 3A. and 3B. (already ex-parte vide order dated 10.09.2025)

¶18

None for defendant no. 2

¶19

2 OA/624/2024 BANK OF INDIA VS. DAVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

¶20

FINAL ORDER

¶21

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,17,35,705.00 (Rupees One Crore Seventeen Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Five Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Suresh Kumar, Chief Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 20.02.2023, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶22

The brief facts of the OA are that defendant nos. 1 and 2 approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs. 80.00 Lacs vide Application dated 26.10.2013, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶23

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs. 80.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 09.11.2013, which is Annexure A4 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Defendant no. 3 (since deceased) stood as guarantor.

¶24

Defendant no. 1 mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land measuring 92K 05M situated at Village Bhambri, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab vide Mortgage Deed bearing vasika no. 1253 dated 07.11.2013 along with its translation, which is Annexure A3 to this OA.

¶25

Documents executed: DP Note, Bearer Letter, Agreement of Hypothecation, Multipurpose Stamp Undertaking, Various Undertakings/Declarations and Deed of Guarantee, all dated 09.11.2013, which are Annexures A5 to A10 to this OA; Acknowledgments of Debt dated 02.11.2016, 20.09.2019 and 08.04.2022, which are Annexure A11 to A13 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 26.05.2023 along with postal receipts, which are Annexure A14 to A17 to this OA and Statement of Account, which is Annexure A18 to this OA.

¶26

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account, there was a debit of Rs. 1,17,35,705.00, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding

¶27

3 OA/624/2024 BANK OF INDIA VS. DAVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

¶28

amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶29

The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal and after service upon defendants, Sh. Ishmeet Singh, Advocate proxy for Sh. Sherry K Singla, Advocate appeared on 01.10.2024 and filed Power of Attorney on behalf of defendant no. 2. Paper book was supplied on 15.01.2025. WS on behalf of defendant no. 2 was filed on 14.02.2025. No one appeared on behalf of defendant no. 2 for admission or denial of documents. Therefore, opportunity for admission or denial of documents was closed vide order dated 01.10.2025. No one appeared on behalf of defendant nos. 1, 3A. and 3B. Therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10.09.2025.

¶30

7. The brief facts of the WS filed by defendant no. 2 are that the applicant had obtained no. of documents from defendant no. 2 and were further asked by the Bank Official to sign a bunch of documents which were blank in all respect and were not read over and explained to defendant no. 2. It was further stated that defendant no. 2 was not served with any notice issued by the applicant. It was further stated that applicant is charging fictitious and exorbitant amount/interest in the account.

¶31

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Suresh Kumar, Chief Manager , Bank of India, has been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record, the applicant had proved its case. It was further argued that OA is not barred by limitation or any other law. None appeared on behalf of defendant no. 2 for arguments.

¶32

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A18 to this OA, it is proved that defendant nos. 1 and 2 approached applicant for availing of the loan facility, which was granted to them. Defendant no. 3 (since deceased) stood as guarantor. Defendants had executed all the relevant documents in favor of the applicant. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement

¶33

4 OA/624/2024 BANK OF INDIA VS. DAVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

¶34

between the parties. Subsequently, the account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,17,35,705.00 (Rupees One Crore Seventeen Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Seven Hundred 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.

¶35

The defendant no. 2 in his WS had stated that signatures were obtained upon a bunch of documents which were blank in all respect and were not read over and explained to defendant no. 2. H owever, defendant no. 2 did not lodge any complaint before any Higher Forum of the applicant or Court of Law. Therefore, it is inferred that cock and bull story was prepared by defendant no. 2 before this Tribunal.

¶36

Further, Central Bank of India v/s Ravindra, AIR 2001 SC 3095 related regarding charging of interest by the applicant. However, as per the judgment of Apex Court, award of interest pendente lite and post decree is discretionary with the court as it is essentially governed by section 34 of CPC de hors the contract between the parties. In a given case, if the court finds that in the principal sum adjudged on the date of the suit, the component of interest is disproportionate with the component of principal sum actually advanced; the court may exercise its discretion in awarding interest pendente lite and post decree interest at a lower rate or may even decline awarding such interest. The discretion shall be exercised fairly, judiciously and for reasons not in an arbitrary or fanciful manner.

¶37

At the time of arguments or before it, learned counsel for defendant no. 2 has not produced any evidence which could create any doubt on the claim of the applicant. 10. In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in clause V. Para 17. has claimed interest @11.30% p.a. with half yearly rests from the date of institution of the application till the realization.

¶38

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

¶39

5 OA/624/2024 BANK OF INDIA VS. DAVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

¶40

instant case including nature of the mortgaged property, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan 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 simple interest @8.00% p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶41

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.1,17,35,705.00 (Rupees One Crore Seventeen Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Five Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00% p.a. in the loan account 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 in 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 defendant nos. 1 and 2 and also of defendant nos. 3A. and 3B. to the extent they inherited the property of deceased defendant no. 3. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶42

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶43

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶44

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 12.08.2026.

¶45

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.

¶46

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶47

Dated: 28.07.2026

¶48

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶49

Presiding Officer,

¶50

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Bank of India v. Sh. Davinder Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Sh. Davinder Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Smt. Karamjeet Kaur

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Sunita Chaudhary and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jashanpreet Singh

Bank of India versus Sh. Gurcharan Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Prem Lata and Others

Indian Bank versus M/S Mahaveer Fabrics and Another