Allowed

Idfc Bank Limited v. Naib Singh and Another

DRT2 Jul 2026OA/741/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's Original Application seeking recovery of a term loan of Rs. 37,83,576.89 from two defendants who defaulted on a commercial vehicle loan. The court granted recovery with simple interest at 8% p.a. instead of the claimed 15.25% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 37,83,576.89 with simple interest at 8% p.a. from filing date; issuance of Recovery Certificate; permission to sell hypothecated vehicle or attach personal assets.

Idfc Bank Limited versus Naib Singh and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.741/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 19.05.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 02.07.2026

¶6

IDFC First Bank Ltd. (erstwhile Capital First Limited) inter alia having its Registered Office at KRM Towers, 7^th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet Chennai - 600031 and having its Branch Office at Plot No. 28 Indutrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Authorized Representative Sh. Vaasu Bhasin, Manager Legal.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Naib Singh S/o Sh. Karam Singh,

¶10

Address: Dashmesh Nagar Gali No. 2, #262/1 Mour Road, Muktsar, Punjab - 152026.

¶11

Ms. Balwant Kaur D/o Sh. Puran Singh,

¶12

Address: Dashmesh Nagar Gali No. 2, #262/1 Mour Road, Muktsar, Punjab - 152026.

¶13

…….. Defendants

¶14

Advocates:

¶15

Argued by Sh. Surinder Pal Singh, Advocate proxy for Sh. Aditya Grover, Advocate for the applicant (through VC)

¶16

None for defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 29.06.2026).

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.37,83,576.89 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Eighty Three Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Six and Paise Eighty Nine Only). The Original Application has been filed throug h Sh. Vaasu Bhasin, Manager Legal of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Authorization Letter dated 11.03.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶19

2 OA NO.741/2026 IDFC FIRST BANK LTD. VS SH. NAIB SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility for purchase of Commercial Vehicle of Rs.34,73,335.00 vide Commercial Vehicle / Construction Equipment Loan Application dated 28.04.2025, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility for purchase of Commercial Vehicle of Rs.34,73,335.00 and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants vide Commercial Vehicle / Construction Equipment Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement dated 29.04.2025, which is Annexure A3 to this OA. 4. Defendant no. 1 hypothecated his movable asset i.e., Commercial Vehicle namely Mahindra Blazo 55 bearing Registration No. PB30AB6179, Engine No. VHS7B11114, Chassis No. MA1UAARXFS6B81615 vide Virtual Registration Certificate along with Insurance copy, which is Annexure A4 to this OA.

¶22

Documents executed: Legal Notice dated 18.02.2026, along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Statement of Account along with foreclosure letter and certificate, which is Annexure A6(Colly) to this OA. 5. The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account there was a debit of Rs.37,83,576.89, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they 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 defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.06.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Vaasu Bhasin, Manager Legal, IDFC First Bank Ltd. has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶23

3 OA NO.741/2026 IDFC FIRST BANK LTD. VS SH. NAIB SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶24

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

¶25

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A6 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of loan facility which was granted to them and for that they 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, loan account was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.37,83,576.89 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Eighty Three Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Six and Paise Eighty Nine 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.

¶26

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @15.25%p.a. with monthly rests from 08.01.2026 till the realization.

¶27

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in

¶28

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 @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.

¶29

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant sum of Rs.37,83,576.89 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Eighty Three Thousand Five Hundred

¶30

4 OA NO.741/2026 IDFC FIRST BANK LTD. VS SH. NAIB SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶31

Seventy Six and Paise Eighty Nine 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 hypothecated vehicle 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.

¶32

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of . 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 17.07.2026. 15. 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 . Dated: 02.07.2026

¶34

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶35

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Idfc Bank Limited v. Naib Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idfc Bank Limited v. Naib Singh 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

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Deep Garments and Another

Union Bank of India versus Smt. Renu Sharma and Others

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Gurjot Singh

Yes Bank Ltd. versus M/S Vohra Trading Company and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Home Need Department Store and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sunil Kumar and Another