PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs P.M THAKUR & ORS on 30 June 2026

FINAL ORDER

1. The Application was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Bengaluru on 05.09.2014 Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debt And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and numbered as OA No. 1707/2014, seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 21,99,625/- (Rupees twenty- one lakh ninety-nine thousand six hundred twenty-five only). Subsequently, owing to bifurcation of jurisdiction vide Government of India Gazette Notification dated 30.01.2017, the Application (OA No. 1707/2014) was transferred from Debts Recovery Tribunal -I, Bangalore to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No. 2208/2017.

2. It is the case of the Applicant that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the borrowers and Defendant No. 3 is the bank in whose favour Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 created an equitable mortgage over the schedule properties as security for the credit facilities availed by them. It is stated that

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 availed a housing loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Only) from the applicant and, in consideration thereof, executed the necessary loan documents, including the loan agreement and other ancillary security documents, in favour of the applicant.

3. It is also the case of the Applicant that, in view of the above loan, the Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 executed the necessary loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank to secure the loans and also created the requisite security interest over the scheduled properties to secure the loan.

4. It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendants No.1 and 2, despite availing the credit facility, after agreeing with the Terms and Conditions for the loan, failed in complying with the same, resulting in defaults and consequentially turning the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

5. In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this TA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

6. Summons were duly served on the Defendants. However, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 failed to appear before the Tribunal despite due service of summons and were accordingly set ex parte on 24.06.2026. Defendant No. 3 entered appearance and filed a written statement but failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence within the time granted by the Tribunal. It is further seen from the record that Defendant No. 3 has remained continuously absent from the proceedings since the year

2017. Consequently, the evidence of Defendant No. 3 was closed, and the matter proceeded on the basis of the evidence adduced by the Applicant.

7. In the written statement filed by Defendant No. 3, It is stated that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had mortgaged the schedule property in favour of Defendant No. 3 as security for the credit facilities availed by them and that, for realization of its dues, Defendant No. 3 brought the mortgaged property to sale by way of a public auction. It is further contended that, out of the sale proceeds, Defendant No. 3 appropriated the amount due and payable to it and deposited the surplus amount of Rs. 5,52,537.48 (Rupees Five Lakh Fifty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Thirty-Seven and Paise Forty- Eight Only) before this Tribunal in compliance with the order dated 12.09.2014 passed in I.A. Nos. 4338/2014 and 4339/2014, by way of Demand Draft No. 729611 dated 16.10.2015 drawn in favour of "Punjab National Bank" in O.A. Nos. 1707/2014 and 1718/2014, along with a memo. Defendant No. 3 therefore contends that it has duly discharged its obligations and that no further liability can be fastened upon it.

8. The Applicant examined AW-1, who filed his proof affidavit reiterating the averments made in the T.A. and produced documents marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-6.

9. The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted and is therefore proved. The Applicant has not sought any relief against Defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 3 sold the mortgaged property by public auction, appropriated the amount due and payable to it, and deposited the surplus amount of Rs. 5,52,537.48 (Rupees Five Lakh Fifty-Two Thousand Five

Hundred Thirty-Seven and Forty-Eight Paise only) with the Applicant.

10. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the TA claim against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Hence the Applicant is to be found entitled for the TA claim as the only issue as to the proof of TA claim is answered in favour of the applicant. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

11. The Applicant filed a memo stating that it has received an amount of Rs. 5,52,537/- (Rupees Five Lakh Fifty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Thirty- Seven only), and the same was accounted for in the books of the Applicant on 05.11.2015.

12. Since the TA claim has been arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, pendente lite and future interest are awarded at 8.00% per annum (simple). The prayer for interest with monthly rests and for penal interest for the future period is hereby declined.

13. In view of the above

i. TA 2208 OF 2017 stands allowed

ii. The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 21,99,625/- (Rupees twenty-one lakh ninety-nine thousand six hundred and twenty-five only) from the Defendant No.1 and 2 jointly, severally and personally with pendente lite and future interest of 8.00% p.a. (simple), from the date of filing of the TA till the realization, from the respective Defendants after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA including a sum of Rs. 5,52,537/-received form the Defendant No.3, and permitting recovery of the balance due amount by proceeding against the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and their assets.

iii. The schedule property had already been sold by Defendant No. 3 by public auction, and the surplus amount was adjusted towards the loan account of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 with the Applicant.

iv. Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order. v. A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the recovery Officer to enable recovery of the as per the above terms. vi. Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. (Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of June, 2026)

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

PRESIDING OFFICER

ANNEXURES WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK: AW-1: Sri. Vaitheeswaran Ramaswamy, General Manager, of Applicant Bank. Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

Exhibit Nos. Date Particulars of Documents A1 24.07.2012 Sanction letter. A2 24.07.2012 Agreement for Housing loan. A3 24.07.2012 and 28.07.2012 Vouchers and disbursing loan amount. A4 21.10.2013 Recall Demand Notice. A5 -- Statement of account A6 06.08.2014 Sale Notice issued by Defendant No.3

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

-Nil- List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

-Nil-

Sd/-

(T. RAJESH)

PRESIDING OFFICER