Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr Ramesh Pratap Singh

DRT19 Sept 2025OA/444/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues from the borrower and the deceased co-borrower's adult legal heir. The application was dismissed against the co-borrower's minor legal heirs. Bank granted interest and direction to issue recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 1.20 crores with 9% per annum interest; respondents 1 and 2 directed to pay dues or face asset sale/restraining order.

Union Bank of India versus Mr Ramesh Pratap Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN TEn DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL A' LUCKNOW

¶2

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶3

Case No. Original Application No.444 of 2022

¶4

Dated: 19.9.2025

¶5

	Union Bank of India,havingBranchat
	Gomti Nagar3/81,Patrakarpuram,Vinay Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010, UP. Versus
1.	Mr. Ramesh Pratap Singh, S/o Mr. Kripal Singh, R/o Village Banket Lodi, PO Raja Bazar, District Jaunpur andalsoR/oK-228, Aashiyana Colony Lucknow-226012.
2.	Dr. Rashmi Singh, W/o Late VipinKumar Singh, S/o Ramesh Pratap Singh, R/o K-228, Aashiyana ColonyLucknow-226012
	[Heir and Legal Representatives ofLate Vipin KumarSingh]
	Business place at: M/s. Sankalp Filing
	StationPetrolPumpat1,Sadarpur, Gosaiganj,Lucknow.
3.	MissNayanSingh,D/oLateVipinKumar Singh, R/o K-228, Aashiyana Colony Lucknow-226012
	[Heirs and Legal Representatives ofLate
	Vipin Kumar Singh] Representedthrough herMother Dr. RashmiSingh.
4.	Master Rajveer Pratap Singh, Minor son of Late Vipin Kumar Singh, R/o K-228, Aashiyana Colony Lucknow-226012 [Heir and Legal Representatives ofLate Vipin Kumar Singh]throughher Mother Dr. RashmiSingh.
5	Master RanveerPratapSingh, Minor son of Late Vipin Kumar Singh, R/o K-228, Aashiyana Colony Lucknow-226012

¶6

. . . . . . .. Applicant Bank

\ /+ R \ 1[A

O.A. No.444 of 2022

[Heir and Legal Representatives of Late Vipin Kumar Singh] through her Mother Dr. Rashmi Singh.

¶11

Master Yashveer Pratap Singh, Minor son of Late Vipin Kumar Singh, R/o K-228, Aashiyana Colony Lucknow-226012 [Heir and Legal Representatives of Late Vipin Kumar Singh] through her Mother Dr. Rashmi Singh.

¶12

. . . . . . . . . .Defendants

¶13

Ld. Counsel for applicant-bank: Mr. AasifRazzaque Khan, Advocate. Ld. Counsel for defendant No. 1: Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate.

¶14

Ld. Counsel for the defendant nos.2 to 6: None.

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

This Original Application has been filed by the applicant Bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993,againstthe defendants for the recovery of Rs.1,20,66,095.56/-(Rupees One Crore, Twenty Lac, Sixty Six Thousand Ninety Five and Paisa Fifty Six Only) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc.

¶17

The brief facts of case is that the defendantno.1 is borrower and Vipin Kumar Singh (now deceased) was co-borrower and the defendant nos.2 to 6 are legal heirs of late Vipin Kumar Singh. The defendant no.1 & Vipin Kumar Singh (now deceased) vide loan application dated 20.11.2019 approached the applicant-bank for grant of Term Loan Facility of Rs.1.20 crores, which was duly considered and sanctioned by the applicant-bank vide its sanction letter dated 29.11.2019 on certain terms and conditions (Exhibit No. A-2 & Exhibit No.A-3) to this original application.

¶18

In order to secure the aforesaid Term Loan facility, the defendantno. 1 and ViDin Kumar Singh (now executed and

: F }'

O.A. No.444 of 2022

signed various security documents in favour of the applicant-bank on 30.11.2019 like Composite Agreement, Offer of Security, Consent for Disclosure of Information to CIBIL and Indemnity Bond (Exhibit No. A-4 to Exhibit No. A-7) to this original application.

¶23

Further, in order to secure the repayment of bank dues, defendant gIlII no.I had created mortgage of his immovable property i.e. Residential Land and Building Plot No.K-228, admeasuring 211.60 mtr. Situated at Aashiana Kanpur Road Schem Lucknow Tehsil and District Lucknow, as detailed in the petition in favour of the bank (Exhibit No. A-6, Exhibit No. A-8 & Exhibit No. A-9) to this original application.

¶24

5 . To avail the aforesaid credit facility, the applicant-bank had opened a loan account in the name of Vipin Kumar Singh & defendant no.1 in order to maintain the credit facility.

¶25

After availing the aforesaid credit facility, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, consequently, the loan account of Vipin Kumar Singh was classified as NPA on 26.8.2021 by the applicant-bank as per RBI guidelines, therefore, the applicant-bank issued Legal Notice dated 22.02.2022 (Exhibit No. A-10), but, the defendants stated no-response and failed to repay the same and the loan account of the Vipin Kumar Singh defendant no.1 is still un-liquidated, hence, this Original Application has been instituted.

¶26

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.1,20,66,095.56/- (Rupees One Crore, Twenty Lac, Sixty Six Thousand Ninety Five and Paisa Fifty Six Only) including interest upto 31.01.2022 were lying due for payment, which

O.A. No.444 of 2022

they did not pay despite repeated requests and demands. The applicant Bank has filed the copy of Statement of Account (Exhibit No.A-11) to this original application.

¶31

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 29.11.2019when the abovementioned credit facility was sanctioned by the applicant-bank and necessary documents were executed by the defendants. The cause of action further arose on 22.02.2022 when the applicant-bank had issued legal notice recalling the defendants to repay the dues of the applicant-bank, but, the defendants failed to pay the same.

¶32

The summons was served upon the defendants through registered post. The defendantno. I appeared before this Tribunal through their counsel to contest the case and filed WS. None appeared for the defendant nos.2 to 6, they had refused to received the notices, hence, the matter proceeded against them vide order dated 28.7.2022.

¶33

The defendant no.1 had stated that defendant had availed credit facility of Rs.1.20 crores from the applicant-bank. It is stated that defendant no.2 expired in Covid-19 Pandemic. It is stated that after the death of IIM I defendant no.2, the applicant-bank had committed fraud, prepared, tampered and manufactured documents dated 10.12.2019 and obtained !11ii forged signature of defendant no.2 without signed by then Official of Insurance Company, for which, complaint was filed before State IIII 1 Commission. It is stated that the applicant-bank is acting like agent and defendants never signed any security documents in favour of the applicantbank, hence, the OA is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

1 have considered rival submission

¶35

O.A. No.444 of 2022

¶36

¶37

1 find that defendants have availed credit facility of Rs.1.20 crore from the applicant-bank on 29.11.2019and the defendant no.1 and Vipin Kumar Singh (now deceased) had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the applicant-bank on 30.11.2019 as reflected from Exhibits annexed with the OA and after availing the same could not maintain financial discipline, hence, the loan account was classified as NPA on 26.8.2021, hence, the applicant-bank initiated recovery proceeding ,against the defendant no.1 and issued notices to legal heirs of Vipin Kumar 'HI i Singh who was co-borrower towards the credit facility, but, they failed to make payment. The defendant has not brought any material to believe its case, after initial burden of proof the onus was upon them to prove its case. 13. In view of above, I find that the bank has every right for recovery of its dues in accordance with law, hence, the OA is allowed against the defendant no.I. Since, the defendant nos.2 to 6 are legal heirs of Vipin Kumar Singh, who was co-borrower, the defendant no.2 is also liable to pay the dues of the applicant-bank and her liability is joint and several along with defendant no.1. The defendants nos.3 to 6 being minors and has been IEN i imF)leaded as legal heirs of Vipin Kumar Singh, the applicant-bank cannot claim any amount from the minors, hence, the OA is dismissed IX against the defendant nos.3 to 6. The defendant nos.I & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues of the applicant-bank.

¶38

From perusal of the record, it is evident that the defendants were IIli ! provided fair opportunities to contest the claim of the bank. As the defendants opted not to contest the case, so only point of consideration before this Tribunal in as to whether the bank is legally entitled to the

¶39

O.A. No.444 of 2022

¶40

¶41

amount as claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and pleading submitted by it.

¶42

In support of the case Shri Manish Kumar, (_''hief Manager of the applicant Bank has supported its case on affidavit.

¶43

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Edlib.it marked as (ExhibitNo. A-1 to ExhibitNo.A-llto this original application),it stands proved that the defendants had availed the credit facility from the applicant 11 bank by executing loan and security documents detailed as above in favour lIFFI of the applicant Bank. A perusal of the application, evidence and documents relied upon clearly establishes hat defendants had utilized the above loan facility as granted to them. The applicant bank has maintained the Books of account in the ordinary course of banking business showing disbursal of the loan amount. It further shows that bank had regularly credited the amount paid by the defendants in the books of account. The Bank had also charged interest from time to time and the entries is relevant u/s 4 of the Bankers Book Evidence Act. It is also proved that the applicant bank’s claim is within limitation against the defendants, therefore, the defendant nos.1 & 2 are only liable to pay the dues.

¶44

Accordingly, the defendant nos.1 & 2aredirected to pay the balance dues to the applicant bank within a period of two months from the date of judgment failing which the applicant bank will be entitled to sell the mortgage property/hypothecated assets as well as personal properties of the defendant nos.1 & 2.

¶45

The applicant-bank has claimed interest @9.50% per annum in the above Term Loan Account together with pendent lite and future interest till the actual date of its realization and costs. On the basis of the foregoing

¶46

O.A. No.444 of 2022

¶47

discussion, interest of justice will be served if pendent-lite and future interest is granted @9.00%per annum in the above loan account with monthly rest on reducing balance from the date of filing of the O. A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶48

1 find that the bank has proved the execution of loan documents and creation of mortgage in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds against the defendant nos.1 & 2 with costs. The defendant nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues of the applicant-bank and the mortgage property/hypothecated assets as well as le personal properties are liable to be sold

¶49

20.It is, therefore, ordered :-

¶50

(i) That the Original Application No.444 of 2022 of the applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.1,20,66,095.56/- (Rupees One Crore, Twenty Lac, Sixty Six Thousand Ninety Five and Paisa Fifty Six Only) together with the interest @9.00% per annum in the loan accounts from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 07.4.2022 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds and is hereby allowed against the defendant nos. 1 & 2 only.

¶51

(ii) The OA is dismissed against the defendant nos.3 to 6 being minor and legal heirs of late Vipin Kumar Singh and the applicant-ban cannot claim any amount from the minor. The bank is at liberty to recovery its dues from the defendant nos. 1 2 only.

¶52

(iii) The defendant nos.1 & 2 are directed to pay the dues within a period of two months from the date of judgment, failing which

D+r \

O.A. No.444 of 2022

the applicant bank will be entitled to recover the same from the secured assets, personal movables and immovable assets of the defendants.

¶57

(iv) The applicant-bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by lllIFFI

¶58

sale of mortgage property/hypothecated assets (if not sold earlier under the provisions of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act 2002). The amount, if any, already recovered by sale of any mortgage property/hypothecated assets or otherwise shall be adjusted towards the debt and only the balance amount shall be recoverable. If the dues of the applicant-bank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall be recovered by attachment and sale of the personal movable and immovable assets of the defendants. IH I

¶59

(v) The defendant nos. I & 2 are hereby restrained by means of IfI

¶60

injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their properties/estates without first paying the claim of the applicant bank.

¶61

(vi) Let Recovery Certificate be issued immediately u/s 19(22) of the IIII F

¶62

Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 by .fixing 19.11.2025 before R.O., DRT, Lucknow.

¶63

Judgment is pronounced in the open court.

¶64

Dated: 19.9.2025

¶65

.\IA b w)> -K (Pravas Kuma Singh) Presiding Officer

¶66

(Veeresh)

Union Bank of India v. Mr Ramesh Pratap Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr Ramesh Pratap 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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Shri Punit Verma

Hdfc Bank versus ms balaji pvc uddyog

Naresh Kumar versus Fullerton India Home Finance Company Ltd.

Ms Karca Enterprises versus Bank of Baroda

Vinit Mahindru versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Ms Bee Dee Ess Maeketeer versus Bank of Baroda