Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Samunder Singh

DRT4 Nov 2025TA/842/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's Original Application for recovery ex-parte, as the defendant absented proceedings and failed to file a written statement or evidence. The bank proved its case through documents including loan agreements and admission letters.

What did the court decide?

Directed the defendant to pay Rs. 27,10,582/- plus interest within 30 days and directed issuance of recovery certificate to Recovery Officer.

Union Bank of India versus Samunder Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 842 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No.842 of 2022

¶5

Union Bank of India (e-Corporation Bank) 581/2, Main Narela Road

¶6

Ghevra, Delhi-110081 Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Samunder Singh 49, Chopal Wali Gali Village- Chand Pur Dabas Delhi-110081 Defendant

¶9

Present: Sh. Aditya Kumar Choudhary, Counsel for applicant bank Date of Reserve: 09.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 04.11.2025

¶10

FINAL ORDER

¶11

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-III, Delhi on 09.10.2025 and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Ms. Poonam, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.27,10,582/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Ten Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Two only) along with pendentelite and future interest @12.85% per annum with monthly rests and penal interest @2% per

¶12

¶13

T.A. No. 842 of 2022

¶14

annum from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendant vide loan application dated 22.12.2012, the applicant bank sanctioned Overdraft facilities for a sum of Rs.15,50,000/- under CCGSL scheme against the assignment of LIC policies in the name of defendant which was converted into Cash Credit limit for a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lacs only) on 01.11.2013 @12.85% interest per annum for working capital requirement against the LIC policies covered under CCGSL scheme. The defendant agreed to pay @2.00% interest above agreed rate of interest in the event of default in repayment.

¶16

That in order to avail the loan facility, the defendant submitted loan application and executed Demand Promissory note, Take Delivery Letter, Agreement for Overdraft/Cash Credit on the Security of Shares, Securities and Life Insurance Policies and Copies of LIC policies with applicant bank on 01.11.2013.

¶17

The Defendant executed Acknowledgement of Debt/Liability dated 18.10.2016 and 31.07.2019 acknowledging the debt towards the applicant bank.

¶18

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.03.2021 as per RBI guidelines and issued legal demand notice dated 23.07.2021 to clear outstanding dues but defendant failed to

¶19

¶20

T.A. No. 842 of 2022

¶21

do so. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶22

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 27.05.2025, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶23

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Ms.Poonam, authorized representative of the applicant who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney, Original Application for Personal Loan, Request for Overdraft Facilities, Demand Promissory Note, Sanction Intimation, Take Delivery Letter, Agreement for Overdraft/Cash credit on the security of Shares, Securities and Life Insurance Policies, Copy of LIC Policies, Acknowledgement of Debt/ Liability, Legal Demand Notice along with original Postal receipts, Statement of Account duly Certified under Banker's Books Evidence Act marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW1/9 (Colly).

¶24

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly approved.

¶25

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

T.A. No. 842 of 2022

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed. •

¶30

•

¶31

ORDER

¶32

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.27,10,582/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Ten Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Two only) together with pendentelite and future interest @12.85% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶33

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶34

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 02.01.2026.

¶35

(IV)^{Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be} sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶36

s4-

¶37

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶38

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 04.11.2025

¶39

Union Bank of India v. Samunder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Samunder 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

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Singh Fab Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Sh. Hoshiar Singh

Sri Rajendra Nath Roy versus Axis Bank

Idfc First Bank Limited versus Saisha Hospitality Private Limited

Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. versus Gauri Shankar Jewellers

State Bank of India versus Teluram Amar Chand and Co.