Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (ERSTWHILE UNITED BANK OF INDIA) vs AJAY ATTRI (PROP M/S GURU TRADERS) on 20 June 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 65/2025
Date of Institution: 31.12.2021
Date of Decision: 20.06.2026
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.
……...Applicant
Vs.
1. Ajay Attri (Prop M/s Guru Traders) s/o Sh. Sardari Lal, r/o Near Om Hospital, NH1, Bari Brahmana, Samba.
2. Gurudayal s/o Sh. Babu Ram, r/o H.No.164, Dhok Jagir Akhnoor, District Jammu.
………. Defendants
Advocates
Mr. Devender Rattan proxy counsel for Sh. Anirudh Gupta, Counsel for the applicant bank.
Defendants-ex parte vide order dated 19.12.2025.
TA for the Recovery of ₹61,22,601.75p with interest @14.15% per annum with monthly rests from 31.12.2021.
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 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.
2. 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 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
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 ₹38.00 Lacs and at the time of filing of the application, a sum of ₹61,22,601.75p was due.
6. 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.
7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8. 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