Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Nitin Kumar and Another

DRT10 Sept 2025OA/6/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an application under Section 19 RDBA for recovery of Rs. 42.97 lacs accrued due from a housing loan default. The Tribunal struck out the defense for failure to file written statement and granted recovery of principal, costs, and simple interest at 8% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay Rs. 42,97,452.67 with 8% annual simple interest, costs, and authorized issuance of a recovery certificate.

Union Bank of India versus Nitin Kumar and Another — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.6/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 16.12.2021

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 10.09.2025

¶6

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings), Act, 1970 having its Central Office at 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 and inter alia a Branch Offices at Manauli, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali, SAS Nagar, Punjab through its Branch Manager, Sh. Sahil Walia.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Nitin Kumar S/o Sh. Sam Lal, R/o House No. 2585 A,

¶10

Sector 39C, Chandigarh.

¶11

Sh. Sham Lal S/o Sh. Balak Ram Sharma, R/o House No. 105, Village Santemajara PO Landra, Tehsil Kharar, District

SAS Nagar Mohali.

…….Defendants

Advocates:

Argued by Sh. Ravi Mishra, Advocate proxy for Sh. Karan Singla, Advocate for the applicant (through VC)

¶16

None for Defendants

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.42,97,452.67p (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Two and

¶19

Paise Sixty Seven Only). The Original Application has been filed

¶20

¶21

OA NO. 6/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS SH. NITIN KUMAR AND ANOTHER

¶22

through Sh. Sahil Walia, Branch Manager o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 01.09.2015, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶23

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants had approached the applicant for grant of Housing Loan of Rs.40.50 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 21.06.2019. 3. The applicant sanctioned Housing Loan of Rs.40.50 Lacs vide Santion Letter dated 21.06.2019, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Plot no. 26, measuring 0 Kanal – 3- 1/3 Marla (100 sq. yards), situated at Village Khuni Majra, Hadbast no. 187, Sector 115, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Punjab vide equitable Mortgage Deed bearing vasika no. 2019-20/15/1/3933 dated 25.06.2019 along with its translation, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; Jamabandi of year 2016-2017, which is Annexure A7 to this OA.

¶24

Documents executed: - Notification dated 01.04.2020, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Composite Agreement dated 21.06.2019, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Letter of Undertaking dated 21.06.2019, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Notice dated 03.12.2021, which is Annexure A8 to this OA and Statement of account which is Annexure A9 to this OA.

¶25

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.42,97,452.67p, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶26

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal. Sh. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendants on 05.01.2024 and filed his Power of Attorney. However, WS was not filed by the defendants and accordingly, the opportunity to

¶27

¶28

OA NO. 6/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS SH. NITIN KUMAR AND ANOTHER

¶29

file the WS by defendants was closed and defense was struck off on 28.06.2024.

¶30

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Sahil Walia, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India h as been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy counsel through Video Conferencing that opportunity to file WS by defendants was closed and defense was struck of on 28.06.2024. It was further argued that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A9 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.42,97,452.67p (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Two and Paise Sixty Seven Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶31

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @08.80%p.a. with quarterly rests from 05.10.2021 till the realization. The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @08.00%p.a. in

¶32

¶33

OA NO. 6/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS SH. NITIN KUMAR AND ANOTHER

¶34

the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.42,97,452.67p (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Two and Paise Sixty Seven Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated/mortgaged properties of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 01.10.2025. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 10.09.2025 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. Nitin Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Nitin Kumar and Another

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

Punjab National Bank versus M/S the Lady Fashion and Another

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus M/S Ludhiana Dairy and Others

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sh. Lavish Sharda and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Messrs Sharman Woollens and Others

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Mangal Singh

Canara Bank versus Gupta Agencies and Others