Disposed

Parveen Kaushal v. Punjab and Sind Bank

DRT17 Feb 2026SA/39/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal adjudicated on the non-payment of the Local Commissioner's fee by the applicant. Due to the applicant's failure to pay the undertaking amount and the fee, the bank was directed to pay an increased fee debited from the applicant's account. The Special Application was disposed of due to non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

The bank to pay Rs.35,000 to the L.C. instead of Rs.25,000; the excess sum debited from applicant's account. SA disposed.

Parveen Kaushal versus Punjab and Sind Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

SA/39/2026 PARVEEN KAUSHAL Vs PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

¶3

17.02.2026 Item No.17

¶4

Present: None for the Applicant. Mr. Dipinder Singh, Counsel for respondent bank along with Mr. Mandeep Singh, Branch Manager, PSB/in person.

¶5

Mr. Puru Gupta, Counsel for IA applicants.

¶6

Mr. Simranjit Singh, Local Commission.

¶7

Vide order dated 06.02.2026, Mr. Simranjit Singh was appointed as L.C. in this case to deliver the possession of the secured asset, i.e., flat situated at Falcon View, Mohali, to the bank. His fee was fixed at Rs.25,000/-, which has to be paid by the applicant. The applicant had also undertaken to pay Rs.10.00 lacs. Mr. Dipinder Singh states that the applicant had only paid Rs.5.00 lacs and had not paid the remaining Rs.5.00 lacs as undertaken by him.

¶8

Mr. Simranjit Singh, L.C., has filed his report. As per the report, he has delivered the possession to the bank by breaking open the lock in the presence of Bhupinder Singh, Chief Manager, and Mandeep Singh, Branch Manager. He further states that though vide order dated 06.02.2026 his fee was fixed at Rs.25,000/-, which has to be paid by the applicant, yet the fee has not been paid. Mr. Dipinder Singh, states that the respondent bank would debit the account of the applicant by Rs.25,000/- and would make the payment of the fee of the L.C. by tomorrow. The L.C. states that because of the noncooperation of the applicant, he had to summon a carpenter to break open the lock and had to face a lot of inconvenience.

¶9

In view of this, the respondent bank is directed to pay Rs.35,000/- instead of Rs. 25,000/- to the L.C. The said sum shall be debited to the account of the applicant. The payment shall be made by tomorrow. Since the applicant has failed to comply with the order dated 06.02.2026, the SA stands disposed of .

¶10

File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶11

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh

¶12

PANKAJ

Parveen Kaushal v. Punjab and Sind Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parveen Kaushal v. Punjab and Sind Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S Bhagwati Enterprises

Icici Bank Limited versus Ram Krishan

Hdfc Bank versus Gurlal Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Shreyam Enterprise

Hasna Bewa versus Punjab National Bank

Bank of India versus Shri Raman Kumar Alias Raman