Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Chetan Singh

DRT25 Aug 2025OA/1540/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an application by Union Bank of India under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of Rs. 40,47,349/- plus interest against defendants who did not appear. The court ordered recovery from mortgaged and personal properties and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 40,47,349/- with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued to officer for distribution of sale proceeds from mortgaged property.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Chetan Singh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1540/2022 Date of Institution: 30.08.2022 Date of Decision: 25.08.2025

¶4

Union bank of India at Sector 21 C, Faridabad, Haryana

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Sh. Chetan Singh S/o Shri Chand, r/o MCF 340, Gali No. 8 Uncha Gaon Rd, Adarsh Nagar Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Haryana-121004

¶8

Smt. Kavita W/o Sh. Chetan Singh, r/o MCF 340, Gali No. 8 Uncha Gaon Rd, Adarsh Nagar Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Haryana121004

¶9

…….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Sh. R.S. Badhran, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶12

Defendants- ex parte

¶13

OA for the Recovery of Rs.40,47,349/- with interest @8.20% per annum with monthly rests from 30.08.2022. ORDER

¶14

Union bank of India (Applicant Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.40,47,349/- with interest against Sh. Chetan Singh and Another (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 20.02.2020, it had granted a loan of Rs.39.20 lacs to the defendants in the form of Term loan Facility for housing purpose. To secure the loan, the defendants had mortgaged their property (fully detailed in para No.3A) of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @8.20% per annum with monthly rests. On 31.07.2022, a sum of Rs.40,47,349/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶16

¶17

On 17.09.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 06.02.2024, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶18

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Manish Kumar Jha, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-10. 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 Rs.39.20 Lacs and on 31.07.2022, a sum of Rs.40,47,349/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.40,47,349/- (Rupees Forty Lacs Forty Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Nine Only) with interest @8.20% per annum with monthly rests from 30.08.2022, 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(ies) fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the hypothecated/personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶19

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 01.10.2025 , who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage property(ies) as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act .

¶20

A copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties.

¶21

Pronounced in the open Court	(A S Narang)
Dated: 25.08.2025	Presiding Officer
	DRT-2, Chandigarh
	(Additional charge)

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Chetan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Chetan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Jarnail Singh

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Sh. Balvir Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Rola Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Guru Amardass Transport

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Sh. Santokh Singh

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Smt Mahinder Kaur @ Mohinder Kaur