Allowed

Bank of India v. Sh. Davinder Singh and Another

DRT7 Sept 2026OA/975/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DR Tribe allowed an Original Application filed by Bank of India for recovery of a loan default. Declaring the defendants liable to repay the principal sum with costs, the Tribunal modified the claimed interest rate to 8% per annum and issued a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Decretal amount of Rs. 28,42,437.79 with costs and 8% p.a. interest; Recovery Certificate issued; Liberty to enforce via execution proceedings.

Bank of India versus Sh. Davinder Singh and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.975/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 30.06.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 07.09.2026

¶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 Jaskirat Complex, Jalandhar Kapurthala Road, District Kapurthala, Punjab through its duly constituted Attorney, Sh. Ramkhilari Sukhram Meena, Chief Manager presently posted at Branch SMEUC, Jalandhar, Punjab

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Davinder Singh, S/o Sh. Suba Singh, R/o Village Busowal, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, Punjab

¶10

Sh. Harvinder Singh, S/o Sh. Jit Singh, R/o Kabirpur, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, Punjab

¶11

……….Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Ms. Lovedeep Kaur, Advocate proxy for Ms. Puja Sharma, Advocate for applicant

¶14

None for defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 01.09.2026)

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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. 28,42,437.79 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Forty Two Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Seven and Paise Seventy Nine Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Ramkhilari Sukhram Meena, Chief Manager o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide

¶17

2 OA NO. 975/2026 BANK OF INDIA VS. DAVINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶18

Power of Attorney dated 24.11.2020, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs. 18.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 17.10.2015, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs. 18.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 02.12.2015, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor.

¶20

Defendant no. 1 mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land measuring 31K 13M situated at Village Bussowal, Hadbast no. 143, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4 (1) of the Punjab Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1978 and Letter to Sub Registrar, both dated 24.11.2015, which are Annexure A8 and A9 to this OA.

¶21

Defendant no. 1 hypothecated his crops like potato, paddy, potato seeds and other seasonal crops vide Hypothecation cum Loan Agreement dated 02.12.2015, which is Annexure A5 to this OA.

¶22

Documents executed: DP Note, Agreement and Deed of Guarantee, all dated 02.12.2015, which are Annexure A4, A6 and A7 to this OA; Acknowledgments of Debt dated 27.04.2018, 07.01.2021 and 20.12.2023, which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 24.04.2026, which is Annexure A11 to this OA and Statement of Account, which is Annexure A12 to this OA.

¶23

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. 28,42,437.79, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notice but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶24

3 OA NO. 975/2026 BANK OF INDIA VS. DAVINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶25

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 01.09.2026.

¶26

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Ramkhilari Sukhram Meena, Chief Manager, Bank of India h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶27

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

¶28

From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A12 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. 28,42,437.79 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Forty Two Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Seven and Paise Seventy 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.

¶29

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @13.30%p.a. including 2% p.a. penal interest with half yearly rests from 23.04.2026 till the realization.

¶30

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 assets/mortgaged property, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill

¶31

4 OA NO. 975/2026 BANK OF INDIA VS. DAVINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶32

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.

¶33

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a sum of Rs.28,42,437.79 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Forty Two Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Seven and Paise Seventy Nine Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00% 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 assets and 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 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 18.09.2026. 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.

¶34

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 07.09.2026

¶35

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶36

Presiding Officer,

¶37

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Bank of India v. Sh. Davinder Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Sh. Davinder 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 India versus Smt. Bachitar Kaur and Another

Yes Bank Ltd. versus M/S Adya Apparels and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Nitan Garg @ Sh. Nitan Kumar and Others

Swarnjit Kaur versus Authum Investment and Infrastructure Ltd. and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Messrs Anish Enterprises and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Heera Singh and Another