Allowed

Uco Bank v. Sh. Ajay Kumar Koundal and Another

DRT28 Jul 2025OA/749/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an original application by UCO Bank for recovery of a home loan defaulting at 17 lacs. Defendants appeared ex-parte. The Court decreed recovery of the principal sum plus standard interest at 08% p.a. and authorized enforcement through hypothecated properties under SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.20,22,322.62p plus costs and simple interest at 08% p.a.; entitlement to recover via sale of mortgaged properties under SARFAESI Act.

Uco Bank versus Sh. Ajay Kumar Koundal and Another — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.749/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 10.06.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 28.07.2025

¶6

UCO BANK, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertaking) Act, 1970 having its Head office at 10, Brabourn Road, Kolkata and its Branches throughout India and amongst other Branches having a Branch Office at Manghat, Ludhiana, through its constituted attorney Ms. Kamaljit Kaur, Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Manghat Branch, Rahon Road, Ludhiana and who is also the principal officer of the Applicant.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Ajay Kumar Koundal S/o Sh. Milap Chand, House No. 8148, Street-8, Near Longia Street, New Shakti Nagar, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana.

¶10

Smt. Rimmi Rani Koundal W/o Sh. Ajay Kumar Koundal, House No. 8148, Street-8, Near Longia Street, New Shakti Nagar, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana.

¶11

………. Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Present: Sh. Varun Verma, Advocate for Applicant Defendants already ex-parte

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.20,22,322.62p (Rupees Twenty Lacs Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Two and Paise Sixty Two Only). The Original Application has been filed through Ms. Kamaljit Kaur, Branch Manager, w ho is competent to institute the Original Application vide Circular of the Bank dated 20.07.2012, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶16

2 OA NO.749/2025 UCO BANK VS. SH. AJAY KUMAR KOUNDAL AND ANOTHER

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no.1 had approached the applicant for grant of Home Loan of Rs.17.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 23.04.2018, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor. Further, defendants had approached the applicant for the restructuring of the said Term Loan and the same was restructured vide Application for Restructuring dated 19.06.2021, which is Annexure A10 to this OA.

¶18

The applicant sanctioned Home Loan of Rs.17.00 Lacs, vide Sanction dated 26.04.2018, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Thereafter this loan was restructured vide letter dated 19.06.2021, which is Annexure A10 to this OA.

¶19

Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his immovable properties i.e. House No. B-31-8168, measuring 100 Sq. yards situated at Village Taraf Jodhewal, Hadbast no. 77, Abadi New Shastri Nagar, Gali No.6, Near Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana vide equitable mortgage of Sale Deed bearing Vasika No. 3131 dated 04.05.2018 along with its English Translation, which is Annexure A7 to this OA.

¶20

Documents executed:- DP Note, Loan Agreement and Letter of Guarantee dated 26.04.2018, which are Annexures A4 to A6 to this OA; Draft of Letter of Deposit of Title Deed to be obtained from the Mortgagor dated 23.06.2018, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Revival Letter dated 17.04.2020, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Agreement with the Borrower on Rescheduling/Rephasing of Term Loan, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; Agreement with the Guarantor on Rescheduling/Rephasing of Term Loan, dated 19.06.2021, which are Annexure A12 to this OA; Revival Letter dated 20.04.2023, which is Annexure A13 to this OA and Statement of Account which is Annexure A14 to this OA.

¶21

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit

¶22

3 OA NO.749/2025 UCO BANK VS. SH. AJAY KUMAR KOUNDAL AND ANOTHER

¶23

of Rs.20,22,322.62p, 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.

¶24

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte on 24.07.2025.

¶25

In support of the OA, affidavit of Ms. Kamaljit Kaur, Branch Manager, UCO Bank h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel 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 A14 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him and for that he 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.20,22,322.62p (Rupees Twenty Lacs Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Two and Paise Sixty Two Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts. 10. In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @09.10%p.a. plus penal interest @2% p.a. with monthly rest from 03.06.2025 till the realization.

¶26

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

¶27

4 OA NO.749/2025 UCO BANK VS. SH. AJAY KUMAR KOUNDAL AND ANOTHER

¶28

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 the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶29

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.20,22,322.62p (Rupees Twenty Lacs Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Two and Paise Sixty Two Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan accounts 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.

¶30

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 04.09.2025.

¶33

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 .

¶34

Dated: 28.07.225

¶35

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶36

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Uco Bank v. Sh. Ajay Kumar Koundal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Sh. Ajay Kumar Koundal 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

State Bank of India versus Sh. Navdeep Singh Sohal and Another

State Bank of India versus Bhj Restro Private Limited and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Ranjit Singh and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Mahain Singh and Others

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Sh. Baldev Singh and Another

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Damandeep Singh and Others