Allowed

Uco Bank v. Shiv Charan Singh

DRT15 Sept 2025OA/59/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for the recovery of Rs. 32,35,333.23 with interest. The court held that the bank proved its case regarding the loan advance and dues. The application for sale of mortgaged properties was permitted, and a recovery certificate was issued.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; recovery of Rs. 32,35,333.23 with interest @10.45% per annum allowed; recovery certificate issued; matter remanded to Recovery Officer for distribution of sale proceeds.

Uco Bank versus Shiv Charan Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 59/2022 Date of Institution: 05.01.2022 Date of Decision: 15.09.2025

¶4

UCO Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Talwara Road, Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

Shiv Charan Singh s/o Sh. Hoshair Singh, r/o Village Kalichpur Kalota, Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

¶7

……….Defendant

¶8

Advocates

¶9

Sh. Deepak Tamang, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendant- ex parte vide order dated 20.03.2023 . OA for the Recovery of Rs.32,35,333.23p with interest @10.45% per annum with half-yearly rests from 05.01.2022.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

UCO Bank has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.32,35,333.23p with interest against Sh. Shiv Charan Singh (defendant).

¶12

Bank’s case is that on 25.01.2017, it had granted a K.C.C. Limit of Rs.25.00 Lacs and Rs.5.00 Lacs in the form of Term Loan to defendant for agricultural purpose. To secure the loans, Defendant had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). On 20.02.2019 and 31.03.2021, the Limits were renewed at Rs.20.00Lacs and Rs.5.00Lacs. The defendant had duly acknowledged his liability towards the debt on 01.12.2019. The loans were chargeable to interest @10.45% per annum with half-yearly rests. On 30.09.2021, a sum of Rs.32,35,333.23p was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶13

¶14

On 22.04.2022, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 20.03.2023, he was proceeded ex parte .

¶15

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Kulpreet Kumar, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-25. 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 total loan of Rs.30.00 Lacs and on 30.09.2021, a sum of Rs.32,35,333.23p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.32,35,333.23p (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs Thirty Five Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Three and Paise Twenty Three Only) with interest @10.45% per annum with half-yearly rests from 05.01.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant.

¶16

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Party is directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 24.10.2025, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged land and standing crops 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 party. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 15.09.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶17

MANOJ KALRA

Uco Bank v. Shiv Charan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Shiv Charan 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

Hdfc Bank versus Maldebhai

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr. Rajaram S/O. Brijlal

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/s. Vishakha Construction

Uco Bank versus MD Sahabaj Prop of Ms Sahabaj Timber and Anr.

Hdfc Bank versus Avtar Singh

Mrs Pinki Mandal and Anr. versus Icici Bank Limited