Allowed

Punjab National Bank (Erstwhile United Bank of India) v. Ajay Attri (Prop M/S Guru Traders)

DRT20 Jun 2026TA/65/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application by Punjab National Bank for recovery of dues of Rs. 61,22,601.75 with interest from the defendants, who failed to appear, confirming the loan and security details.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 61,22,601.75 with interest; issuance of Recovery Certificate; joint and several liability of defendants.

Punjab National Bank (Erstwhile United Bank of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 65/2025 Date of Institution: 31.12.2021 Date of Decision: 20.06.2026

¶4

Punjab National Bank (erstwhile United Bank of India) having its branches all over India and a branch at Jyoti Public School, Lost Morh, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.

¶5

……...Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Ajay Attri (Prop M/s Guru Traders) s/o Sh. Sardari Lal, r/o Near Om Hospital, NH1, Bari Brahmana, Samba.

¶8

Gurudayal s/o Sh. Babu Ram, r/o H.No.164, Dhok Jagir Akhnoor, District Jammu.

¶9

………. Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Mr. Devender Rattan proxy counsel for Sh. Anirudh Gupta, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶12

Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 19.12.2025 .

¶13

TA for the Recovery of ₹61,22,601.75p with interest @14.15% per annum with monthly rests from 31.12.2021.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

On 31.12.2021, Punjab National Bank, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹61,22,601.75p with interest against Ajay Attri and another (defendants) in the Court of Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Jammu. However, vide order dated 09.05.2025, this suit was transferred by the Court of Principal District Judge, Jammu, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 14.01.2016, it had granted a loan of ₹38.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 in the form of C.C Limit for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 being the proprietor had mortgaged his land and hypothecated assets (fully detailed in Mortgaged Deed {Annexure-D}; Hypothecation Agreement {Page No.26} of the

¶17

¶18

application). Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor vide letter of guarantee dated 14.01.2016. The loan was chargeable to interest @14.15% per annum with monthly rests. At the time of filing of the application, a sum of ₹61,22,601.75p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.

¶19

The Civil Court sent summonses to the defendants by registered post. After transfer of this suit, summonses were sent to the defendants which were duly served. However, they did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 19.12.2025, they were proceeded ex parte.

¶20

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Hans Raj, Senior Manager, along with the original loan and security documents.

¶21

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 ₹38.00 Lacs and at the time of filing of the application, a sum of ₹61,22,601.75p was due.

¶22

Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹61,22,601.75p (Rupees Sixty One Lacs Twenty Two Thousand Six Hundred One and Paise Seventy Five Only) with interest @14.15% per annum with monthly rests from 31.12.2021, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of both the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land and hypothecated assets fully detailed in (fully detailed in Mortgaged Deed {Annexure-D}; Hypothecation Agreement {Page No.26} of the application) as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶23

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶24

¶25

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 21.07.2026. 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 20.06.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Punjab National Bank (Erstwhile United Bank of India) v. Ajay Attri (Prop M/S Guru Traders)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank (Erstwhile United Bank of India) v. Ajay Attri (Prop M/S Guru Traders)

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

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus Ms Dolphin Electronics

Hitesh So Jaswant Gaupale versus Sitaara Housing Finance Limited Earlier Known as Sewa Grih Rin Limited

Mr Shivaraj Badigar and Another versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus Garvit

Bank of Baroda versus Shine Packaging

Hdfc Bank versus Ajay Pratap and Anr.