Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Pyara Singh

DRT21 May 2026OA/879/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by Punjab National Bank against Pyara Singh for recovery of Rs. 24,24,950. The court upheld the bank's claim, declared the defendant liable, and granted simple interest at 8% p.a. instead of the claimed 13.5%.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 24,24,950 with 8% simple interest p.a. from filing date till realization, enforceable via sale of mortgaged property or personal assets.

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Pyara Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.879/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 10.07.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 21.05.2026

¶6

Punjab National Bank, a Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at Plot No. 4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 and Branch amongst other places at A S College Khanna, District Ludhiana represented by Circle Sastra Centre, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its Authorized Officer and duly constituted Attorney Sh. Ravinder Kumar son of Sh. Madan Lal.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Pyara Singh S/o Sh. Sant Singh, R/o House No. 3, Village Ramgarh, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana, Punjab-141401

¶10

….……Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Arun Kumar Nanda, Advocate proxy for Sh. Inder Jeet Khattar Sharma, Advocate for applicant

¶13

None for defendant

¶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 defendant for recovery of Rs.24,24,950.00 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Ravider Kumar, Authorized Officer o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 05.06.1997, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶16

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs.15.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 06.01.2015, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶17

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.15.00 Lacs vide Memorandum of sanction and letter of sanciton dated 06.01.2015,

¶18

2 OA NO.879/2024 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. PYARA SINGH

¶19

which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶20

Defendant mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land measuring 16K-01M situated at Village Ramgarh, Hadbast no. 216, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana, Punjab vide Declaration dated 27.01.2015 u/s 4(1) of Punjab Agricultural Credit Operation and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act along with non-encumbrance certificate dated 22.01.2015, along with translation, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Jamabandi for the year 2008-09, along with translation, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Declaration regarding Agriculture Land with Affidavit dated 30.01.2015, which is Annexure A6 to this OA. Documents executed: Hypothecation Agreement, Letter of Undertaking, Letter of Consent, all dated 30.01.2015, which are Annexure A4 and A5 to this OA; Consideration Vouchers dated 30.01.2015, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Balance Confirmation Letters dated 29.04.2017, 25.04.2019, 21.10.2020 and 04.04.2023, which are Annexures A10 to A13 to this OA; Demand Notice dated 01.03.2018, which is Annexure A14 to this OA; Legal Notice, which is Annexure A15 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 23.05.2022, along with postal receipt, which is Annexure A16 to this OA; Statement of Account, which is Annexure A17 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.24,24,950.00, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notice but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendant was served summons to appear before this Tribunal and after service upon defendant, Sh. Harinder Pal Singh, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendant on 05.11.2024. WS was filed by defendant on 03.05.2025. Since, the WS was filed beyond stipulated period, the same was taken on record vide order dated 16.06.2025 subject to payment of cost. Replication to WS of defendant was filed by applicant on 14.05.2026. Since, the defendant did not

¶21

3 OA NO.879/2024 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. PYARA SINGH

¶22

participate in process of admission or denial of several documents, his opportunity to participate in admission or denial process was closed vide order dated 18.05.2026.

¶23

The brief facts of WS of defendant are that applicant has not come to this Tribunal with clean hands and application is not filed in proper format. It is further stated that applicant is claiming charge over agriculture land through declaration made under Section 4(1) of Punjab Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1978 and there is lot of difference between mortgage and a charge. It is further stated that the OA is filed by an incompetent person on behalf of applicant who has not been authorized by Board of Directors of the bank. It is further stated that the applicant has claimed interest much more than the agreed rate and the bank has capitalized penal interest against the mandate given by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra. It is further stated that it is duty of the bank to get the Crop Loan insured and non-payment of loan and its interest was only due to crop failure on account of COVID-19 pandemic and the intimation was duly given to the bank who failed to get the claim reimbursed from insurance company. It is further stated that there is no registration and no stamp duty on mortgaged land and thus the mortgage is inadmissible. It is further stated that so called mortgage or charge over land is bad as the property is part and parcel of bigger chunk of land where there are several co-sharers and thus the property location is not identifiable so there will be dispute regarding the possession of the property if third party charge is created.

¶24

As per the replication to WS of defendant filed by the applicant, the defendant never gave any proof to the applicant regarding crop failure and the judgment quoted by defendant in his WS in this regard does not relate to facts of this case. It is further stated that the charge has been created on land as per prevailing Government guidelines. It is further stated that the interest has been charged by the applicant as per guidelines. 8. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Ravider Kumar, Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank h as been filed.

¶25

4 OA NO.879/2024 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. PYARA SINGH

¶26

Heard arguments and perused record.

¶27

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.

¶28

No one appeared on behalf of defendant for arguments. From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A17 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendant failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendant was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.24,24,950.00 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Only), along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶29

At the time of arguments or before it, Learned counsel for defendant has not produced any evidence which could create any doubt on the claim of the applicant. The mortgage over the immovable property has been created in favor of applicant as per declaration u/s 4(1) of Punjab Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1978 i.e. prevailing Government guidelines. Contents of WS are vague and contradictory. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the documentary evidence produced by the applicant from Annexures A1 to A17.

¶30

Also, Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Authorized Officer of applicant is duly competent to file this application as per his Power of Attorney dated 05.06.1997 (Annexure A1) issued by the competent authority of the applicant. Evidence by way of an Affidavit of Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Authorized Officer was also filed by the applicant along with the OA.

¶31

Central Bank of India v/s Ravindra AIR 2001 SC 3095

¶32

relates regarding charging of interest by the applicant. However, as

¶33

5 OA NO.879/2024 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. PYARA SINGH

¶34

per the judgement 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 the 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 the principal sum actually advanced the Court may exercise its discretion in awarding interest pendente lite and postdecree interest at a lower rate or may even decline awarding such interest. The discretion shall be exercised fairly, judiciously and for reasons and not in an arbitrary or fanciful manner. 11. In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @13.50%p.a. with half yearly rests from 09.07.2024 till the realization.

¶35

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 mortgaged property, undertaking of the defendant, 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.

¶36

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.24,24,950.00 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Only), 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 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

¶37

¶38

OA NO.879/2024 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. PYARA SINGH

¶39

attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendant. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 13. Any other application pending stands disposed of . 14. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 15. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 12.06.2026. 16. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendant through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 21.05.2026

¶40

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

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Pyara Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Sh. Pyara Singh

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

Deepak Kumar and Another versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Harender Trading Co. and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sanjay Roadlines and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Shivam and Another

Central Bank of India versus Sh. Sukhpal Singh and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Surinder Singh