Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs BANMEET SINGH on 24 July 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 187/2024
Date of Institution: 08.11.2021
Date of Decision: 24.07.2026
Punjab National Bank (erstwhile United Bank of India), B/u Last Morh, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu
...Applicant
Vs.
1.
Banmeet Singh,
S/o Harbhajan Singh,
R/o 81-A, Sec 13, Nanak Nagar, Jammu.
2.
Gouravjeet Singh,
S/o Harmeet Singh,
R/o 97/1, Nanak Nagar, Jammu.
...Defendants
Advocates
Mr. Ishan Mathur, proxy Counsel for Ms. Suditi Suri, Counsel for the Applicant Bank.
Defendants – ex parte.
TA for the Recovery of Rs.32,98,753/- with interest @12% per annum with monthly rests from 08.11.2021.
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 08.11.2021, Punjab National Bank (erstwhile United Bank of India) filed the suit for the recovery of Rs.32,98,753/- with interest against Mr. Banmeet Singh and another (defendants) in the Court of Learned Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Jammu. However, vide order dated 10.04.2023, this suit was transferred by the Court of the Additional District Judge (Commercial Court), Jammu, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.
2. Bank’s case is that defendant No.1 is borrower and defendant No.2 is guarantor. On 03.07.2014, it had granted a Housing Loan of Rs.25 lacs to defendant No.1. To secure the loan, defendant No.1 had mortgaged his property (fully detailed in Para No.4 of the plaint).
Defendant No.2 stood as Guarantor for the above Housing Loan (Guarantee Deed attached to the plaint as Annexure D). The loan was chargeable to interest @10.25% per annum with monthly rests. In the year 2019, a sum of Rs.32,98,753/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this suit.
3. On 14.05.2025, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 28.01.2026, 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 loan and original 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 Housing Loan of Rs.25 lacs to defendant No.1 and in the year 2019, a sum of Rs.32,98,753/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the application of the Bank for the recovery of Rs.32,98,753/- (Rupees Thirty-Two Lacs Ninety-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty-Three Only) with interest @12% per annum with monthly rests from 08.11.2021, 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 property (fully detailed in Para No.4 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 25.08.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged 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: 24.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh HARSH