Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
BANK OF BARODA vs M/S MILAN SERVO PVT. LTD on 18 August 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 56/2022
Date of Institution: 14.01.2013
Date of Decision: 18.08.2026
Bank of Baroda having its branches all over India and a branch at Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, J&K.
……..Applicant
Vs.
1. M/s Milan Servo Pvt. Ltd. Shop No.20 N, Yard No.6, Narwal, Jammu, through Director Sh. Rajinder Singh s/o Sh. Kehar Singh, r/o Simbhal Morh Head, Near J&K Bank, R.S. Pura, Jammu.
2. Sh. Rajinder Singh s/o Sh. Kehar Singh, r/o Simbhal Morh Head, Near J&K Bank, R.S. Pura, Jammu.
3. Sh. Attar Singh s/o Sh. Budhi Singh, r/o Chowadhi, Jammu.
4. Sh. Manzoor Hussain s/o Sh. Abdul Rashid, r/o Vidhata Nagar, Bathindi Roas, Narwal, Jammu.
……….Defendants
Advocates
Ms. Kanchan Sehgal, Counsel for the applicant bank.
Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 04.02.2025.
TA for the Recovery of ₹56,16,090/- with interest @14% per annum with monthly rests from 14.01.2013.
ORDER
1. On 14.01.2013, Bank of Baroda, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹56,16,090/- with interest against M/S Milan Servo Pvt. Ltd. and others (defendants) in the Court of the Learned District Judge, Jammu. However, vide order dated 20.09.2022, Additional District Judge, (Commercial Court), Jammu, transferred this suit to DRT-I, Chandigarh.
2. Bank’s case is that on 17.04.2008, it had granted a loan of ₹40.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its director defendant No.2 in the form of ODBTL Limit for business purpose. To secure the loan, defendant No.1 had hypothecated assets and defendant Nos.2 and 3 had mortgaged
Page 1 of 3
their land (fully detailed in para No.5 of the application). Defendant Nos.3 and 4 stood as guarantors. The loan was chargeable to interest @14% per annum with monthly rests. On 31.12.2012, a sum of ₹56,16,090/- 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, which were duly served. After transfer of this suit/application, summonses were sent to the defendants which were duly served. However, they did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 04.02.2025, they were proceeded ex parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. J.S Thind, 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 ₹40.00 Lacs and on 31.12.2012, a sum of ₹56,16,090/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹56,16,090/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lacs Sixteen Thousand Ninety Only) with interest @14% per annum with monthly rests from 14.01.2013, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of defendant nos. 1, 3 and 4 would be joint and several. No personal claim lies against Defendant no.2 being the director. Defendant no.2 would be liable to the extent of property mortgaged by him to secure the loan. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land and hypothecated assets fully detailed in para No.5 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant nos. 1, 3 and 4.
7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
Page 2 of 3
8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 21.09.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property and hypothecated assets 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: 18.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA
Page 3 of 3
Loading citations and judicial treatment…