Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S R.P. Filling Station

DRT20 Mar 2026TA/147/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank of Baroda's application for recovery of Rs. 40,09,580 along with interest from the proprietors and guarantors who failed to appear. The court ordered joint and several liability and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate for sale of mortgaged property proceeding under Section 19(20-AB).

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 40,09,580 with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate to be issued; Property sale proceeds distribution under Section 19(20-AB).

Bank of Baroda versus M/S R.P. Filling Station — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 147 of 2024 Date of Institution: 23.03.2013 Date of Decision: 20.03.2026

¶4

Bank of Baroda having a branch at Gandhinagar, Jammu District/ State Jammu.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

M/s R.P. Filling Station proprietor Ms. Pooja Menia r/o Village Hakkal Dairy, P.O. Satwari, Tehsil and District Jammu.

¶7

Ms. Pooja Menia r/o Village Hakkal Dairy, P.O. Satwari, Tehsil and District Jammu.

¶8

Hans Raj s/o Ranju Ram r/o Village Sehora, P.O. Sehora, District Jammu.

¶9

Sham Lal Wadhwa s/o Sh. Thakur Dass s/o Sector no.1, Railway Road, Nanak Nagar, Jammu.

¶10

Shiv Ram s/o Late Sh. Sain Dass r/o Village Hakkal Tehsil and District Jammu. ……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh. Sumeet Sehgal, Counsel for the applicant bank. None for defendants. TA for the Recovery of ₹40,09,580/- with interest @16.50% per annum with monthly rests from 23.03.2013.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

On 23.03.2013, Bank of Baroda filed the suit for the recovery of ₹40,09,580/- with interest against M/s R.P. Filling Station and others (defendants) in the Court of Additional District Judge, Jammu. However, vide order dated 27.02.2023, the suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jammu to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶15

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 27.02.2006, it had granted a loan of ₹20.00Lacs to defendant no.1 through its proprietor Defendant no.2 in the form of Overdraft Facility under B.O.B. Vipar Scheme for business purpose. On 15.12.2007, the bank enhanced the Overdraft Limit from ₹20.00Lacs to ₹40.00Lacs. To secure the loan, Defendant nos. 2 and 5 had mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.9A of the plaint). Defendant nos. 3 to 5 stood as the guarantors. The loan was chargeable to interest @16.50% per annum with monthly rests. The defendants had acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 08.06.2012. On 28.02.2013, a sum of ₹40,09,580/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.

¶17

The Civil Court, sent summonses to the defendants which were duly served. After receiving the file by transfer from Jammu, this Tribunal sent summonses to the defendants by registered post/publication on 21.03.2025, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance and vide order dated 19.11.2025, they were proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Jaspal Singh Thind, Executive Manager Law, along with the loan and security documents. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of ₹40.00Lacs and on 28.02.2013, a sum of ₹40,09,580/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹40,09,580/(Rupees Forty Lacs Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Only) with interest @16.50% per annum with monthly rests from 23.03.2013, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the

¶18

¶19

defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property fully detailed in para No.9A of the plaint as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶20

7.	Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8.	Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9.	Parties are directed to appear before	Recovery Officer on
29.0	4.2026,who is directed to distribute the	sale proceeds of the
mort	gage property as per the provisions of Section	19(20-AB) of the Act.
10.	A Copy of this order along with Recovery	Certificate be sent to
the R	ecovery Officer as well as the parties.
Pron Date	ounced in the open court. d: 20.03.2026	(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

Bank of Baroda v. M/S R.P. Filling Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S R.P. Filling Station

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

State Bank of India versus M/s Arvind and Sons Ksk

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Kheta Singh

State Bank of India versus Sivaraj

Smt Veena Jain versus City Union Bank Limited

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus Rachpal Kaur @ Rashpal Kaur

Smt Lavina Murarka and Anr. versus Axis Bank