Allowed

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Sh. Rajesh Sharma and another

DRT25 Aug 2026OA/636/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte application filed under Section 19 RDB Act for recovery of debt. The court declared the defendants liable to pay the principal amount with simple interest at 8% per annum and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; defendants liable to pay principal Rs. 21,45,117 plus simple interest at 08% p.a. from date of filing; Recovery Certificate issued.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Sh. Rajesh Sharma and another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 636/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 29.04.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 25.08.2026

¶6

Punjab and Sind Bank, a Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at Bank House, 21, Rajendra Place, New Delhi- 110008 and amongst other places, a Branch Office at Haibowal Kalan Branch, Ludhiana, Punjab through its duly Constituted Attorney and Branch Manager, Sh. S. Hardhir Singh Brar

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Rajesh Sharma, S/o Sh. Hira Lal Sharma, R/o House no. 95C, Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab

¶10

Smt. Rachna Sharma, W/o Sh. Rajesh Sharma, R/o House no. 95C, Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab

¶11

….……Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Rajan Arora, Advocate for applicant (through VC) None for defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 18.08.2026)

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

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. 21,45,117.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Forty Five Thousand One Hundred Seventeen Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Hardhir Singh Brar, Branch Manager of the applicant , who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 17.05.2018, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶16

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for grant of Auto Loan of Rs. 7.00 Lacs vide Loan Application Form dated 24.11.2011, which is Annexure A3 to this OA.

¶17

2 OA NO. 636/2026 PUNJAB AND SIND BANK VS. RAJESH SHARMA AND ANOTHER

¶18

The applicant sanctioned Auto Loan of Rs. 7.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 26.11.2011, which is Annexure A2 to this OA and the terms and condition were duly accepted by the defendants. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor. 4. Defendant no. 1 hypothecated his movable asset namely Volkswagen Vento Highline Diesel bearing Registration no. PB10DG7174, Chassis no. WVWK11600CT010081 and Engine no. CLN173390 vide Invoice dated 26.11.2011, which is Annexure A15 to this OA. As per OA, the applicant repeatedly called upon defendant no. 1 to furnish the copy of RC of the said motor vehicle for the purpose of completing its record; however, defendant no. 1 failed and neglected to submit the same despite repeated requests and reminders made by the applicant. Documents executed: DP Note, Agreement of Hypothecation, Form nos. 103, 106, 200, 216, 291 and 412, Letter of Consent, Agreement of Guarantee and Undertaking, all dated 26.11.2011, which are Annexure A4 to A14 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 11.03.2026 along with postal receipts, which are Annexure A16 to A18 to this OA; Statement of Account with certificate, which are Annexure A19 and A20 to this OA and Balance and Security Confirmation Letters dated 08.11.2014, 31.05.2017, 05.05.2020 and 03.05.2023, which are Annexure A21 to A24 to this OA. 5. 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. 21,45,117.00, which is recoverable and the defendants was served recall notices but he did 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 the defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 18.08.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Hardhir Singh Brar, Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶19

3 OA NO. 636/2026

¶20

PUNJAB AND SIND BANK VS. RAJESH SHARMA AND ANOTHER

¶21

It was argued by learned counsel, through video conferencing, that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶22

From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A24 to this OA, it is proved that defendant no. 1 approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor. Defendants had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, 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. 21,45,117.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Forty Five Thousand One Hundred Seventeen 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 in relief clause has claimed interest @11.45%p.a. plus @2% p.a. penal interest with monthly rests from 01.04.2026 till the realization.

¶23

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 asset, 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 @08.00% 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.

¶24

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.21,45,117.00 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Forty Five Thousand One Hundred Seventeen Only) jointly and severally with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00% p.a. in the loan account from the date

¶25

¶26

OA NO. 636/2026

¶27

PUNJAB AND SIND BANK VS. RAJESH SHARMA AND ANOTHER

¶28

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 hypothecated asset 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 the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶29

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 09.09.2026.

¶32

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.

¶33

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶34

Dated: 25.08.2026

¶35

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Sh. Rajesh Sharma and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Sh. Rajesh Sharma and another

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S Beat Zone 99 and Another

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Charanjeet Singh and Others

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Gurmit Singh and Another

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Sh. Gurlal Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus M/S Sbj Enterprises and Another

Bank of India versus Sh. Hakam Singh through His Legal Heirs and Another