Allowed

Indusind Bank Limited v. Sh. Mahipal Singh and Others

DRT8 Jan 2026OA/916/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an applicant's original application for recovery of Rs. 89,35,328.82 from four defendants, who were borrowers and a guarantor. The court reduced the claimed interest rate to 8% p.a. simple interest and directed issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of liability to pay Rs. 89,35,328.82 with 8% p.a. simple interest; issuance of Recovery Certificate; direction to attach/sell mortgaged or personal assets.

Indusind Bank Limited versus Sh. Mahipal Singh and Others — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.916/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 07.06.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 08.01.2026

¶6

IndusInd Bank Limited, a body corporate and a scheduled Bank constituted under the provisions of The Companies Act, 1956 with its Registered Office at 2401, Gen. Thimmayya Road, (Cantonment) Pune411001 and amongst others its branch at Patiala, Punjab-147001 through its Chief Manager and Attorney Holder Sh. Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Roshan Lal, Chief Manager, posted as Chief Manager, at Zonal Office, Agri. Business Division, SCO 62, Top Floor, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh of the Applicant.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Mahipal Singh S/o Sh. Dal Singh, R/o H. No. 188, Village Kasour, Near Panchayat Ghar, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, Haryana-136035

¶10

Sh. Ompal Singh S/o Sh. Dal Singh, R/o H. No. 188, Village Kasour, Near Panchayat Ghar, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, Haryana-136035

¶11

Sh. Dal Singh S/o Sh. Tikka Singh, R/o Village Kasour, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, Haryana-136035

¶12

Sh. Ravinder Singh S/o Sh. Zile Singh, R/o H. No. 4, Kassor, Village Kasore, Mastgarh, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, Haryana136035

¶13

………Defendants

¶14

Advocates:

¶15

Argued by Ms. Gunjan Jaswal, Advocate proxy for Sh. Sumit Batra, Advocate for Applicant

¶16

None for defendants

¶17

2 OA NO.916/2022 INDUSIND BANK LIMITED VS. MAHIPAL SINGH AND OTHERS

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

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.89,35,328.82 (Rupees Eighty Nine Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Eight and Paise Eighty Two only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Roshan Lal, Chief Manager and Attorney Holder, o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application Vide Power of Attorney dated 11.02.2021, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the Defendant no. 1 to 3 approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs.88.00 Lacs and Agriculture Term Loan of Rs.7.00 Lacs vide loan application dated 11.03.206 which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Defendant no. 4 stood as guarantor.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs.68.00 Lacs and Agriculture Term Loan of Rs.7.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 21.03.2016, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶22

Defendant nos. 1 to 3 mortgaged their immovable properties i.e. land measuring 67K-10M (12K-0M in the name of defendant no. 1, 9K0M in the name of defendant no. 2 and 46K-10M in the name of defendant no. 3) situated at Village Kasor, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, Haryana vide Simple Mortgage deed dated 29.03.2016, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶23

Documents executed: Demand Promissory Note, DP Delivery Cum Waiver Letter, Loan Cum Hypothecation Agreement, Guarantee Agreement, all dated 21.03.2016, which are Annexures A4 to A7 to this OA; Recall Notice dated 17.05.2021, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Supplementary Notice dated 26.11.2021, which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Statement of CC Account, Statement of Accounts which are Annexures A11 to A12 to this OA.

¶24

3 OA NO.916/2022

¶25

INDUSIND BANK LIMITED VS. MAHIPAL SINGH AND OTHERS

¶26

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit Rs.89,35,328.82, 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.

¶27

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal. Sh. Kapil Kumar, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendant nos. 1 to 4 on 28.05.2024 and filed his memo of appearance on behalf of defendants. He filed his Power of Attorney on behalf of defendants on 01.07.2024. Since WS was not filed by defendant nos. 2 to 4, their opportunity to file WS was closed and defense was struck off vide order dated 19.02.2025. Since WS filed by defendant no. 1 was within stipulated time, vide order dated 19.02.2025 the same was taken on record subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/-. However, the defendant no. 1 did not deposit the cost despite opportunities, therefore WS filed by defendant no. 1 was not taken on record and his defense was struck off vide order dated 14.10.2025.

¶28

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Chief Manager, IndusInd Bank Limited h as been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record. No one appeared on behalf of defendants for arguments. 9. It was argued by learned proxy counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A12 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities 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 loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants were classified as NPA. From

¶29

4 OA NO.916/2022 INDUSIND BANK LIMITED VS. MAHIPAL SINGH AND OTHERS

¶30

the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.89,35,328.82 (Rupees Eighty Nine Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Eight and Paise Eighty Two only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶31

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.60% p.a. in KCC and @13%p.a. in Term Loan, with 18% penal interest and half yearly rests in both from 01.05.2021 till the realization.

¶32

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/hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loans 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 uniform simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶33

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.89,35,328.82 (Rupees Eighty Nine Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Eight and Paise Eighty Two only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts 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/mortgaged properties of the defendants 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

¶34

5 OA NO.916/2022 INDUSIND BANK LIMITED VS. MAHIPAL SINGH AND OTHERS

¶35

attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 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 22.01.2026. 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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 08.01.2026.

¶36

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

Indusind Bank Limited v. Sh. Mahipal Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indusind Bank Limited v. Sh. Mahipal Singh and Others

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 India versus Sh. Dayal Singh Alias Dial Singh and Others

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Sukhwinder Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Messrs M K Hotels and Hospitality and Others

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Tarlochan Singh

State Bank of India versus M/S Sharma Steel Traders and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Sukhraj Singh