Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs M/S SUPER CHEM PLAST INDUSTRIES on 8 May 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 194 of 2024
Date of Institution: 19.12.2011
Date of Decision: 08.05.2026
Punjab National Bank at Gangya, Jammu.
……..Applicant
Vs.
1. M/s Super Chem Plast Industries, Plot no.18A, Phase 2, SICOP Industrial Area, Gangyal through its proprietor namely Smt. Vanita Mahajan w/o Late Satish Mahajan r/o H.no. 91/1- A, South Extension, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu.
2. Smt. Vanita Mahajan w/o Late Satish Mahajan r/o H.no. 91/1- A, South Extension, Trikuta Nagar, Jammu.
3. S. Sagar Singh s/o Sh. Priatm Singh r/o Village Sehora, Tehsil Jammu.
4. S. Manjeet Singh s/o Sh. Priatm Singh r/o Village Sehora, Tehsil Jammu.
……….Defendants
Advocates
Sh. Rishabh Gupta proxy counsel for Sh. Anirudh Gupta, Counsel for the applicant bank.
None for defendants.
TA for the Recovery of ₹22,94,645/- with interest @14% per annum with monthly rests from 19.12.2011.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. On 19.11.2011 Punjab National Bank filed the suit for the recovery of ₹22,94,645/- with interest against M/s Super Chem Plast Industries and others (defendants) in the Civil Court Jammu. However, vide order dated 02.05.2023, this suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.
2. Bank’s case is that on 23.02.2005, it had granted a loan of ₹14.00Lacs to defendant no.1 through its proprietor Defendant no.2 in the form of C.C. Limit for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant no.2 had mortgaged her property (fully detailed in para No.7 of the plaint). Defendant nos. 3 and 4 stood as the guarantor. The loan was chargeable to interest @14% per annum with monthly rests. On 30.11.2011, a sum of ₹22,94,645/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.
3. 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 on 05.02.2025, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance and vide order dated 03.02.2026, they were proceeded ex parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. R.L. Dogra, Authorised Officer , 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 ₹14.00Lacs and on 30.11.2011, a sum of ₹22,94,645/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹22,94,645/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Ninety Four Thousand Six Hundred Forty Five Only) with interest @14% per annum with monthly rests from 19.12.2011, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property fully detailed in para
No.7 of the plaint as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.
7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 12.06.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage 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 Recovery Officer as well as the parties.
Pronounced in the open court.
(A S Narang) Dated: 08.05.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh