Allowed

Uco Bank v. Shri Sher Singh

DRT24 Aug 2026OA/101/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex parte proceeding, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed UCO Bank’s application seeking recovery of ₹34,55,053/- plus interest against three defendants, confirming their joint and several liability and permitting sale of mortgaged land.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of ₹34,55,053/- with interest directed to be recovered via sale of mortgaged land and personal movable/immovable property. Recovery Certificate issued to Recovery Officer.

Uco Bank versus Shri Sher Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 101/2024 Date of Institution:30.11.2023 Date of Decision: 24.08.2026

¶4

UCO Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Shahkot, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Sh. Sher Singh s/o Sh. Tara Singh, r/o Village Mirpur Saidan Tehsil Shahkot District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶8

Smt. Sarabjit Kaur w/o Sh. Sher Singh, r/o Village Mirpur Saidan Tehsil Shahkot District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶9

Sh. Gurdev Singh s/o Sh. Surjit Singh, r/o Village Mulewal Brahmna Tehsil and District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh. Pankaj Beri, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 04.09.2025 .

¶13

OA for the Recovery of ₹34,55,053/- with interest from 30.11.2023.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

UCO Bank has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹34,55,053/- with interest against Sh. Sher Singh and others (defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 22.09.2015, defendant No.1 approached the bank for enhancement of the existing K.C.C. Limit of ₹12.85 Lacs. On 22.09.2015, bank sanctioned a K.C.C Limit-I of ₹22.00 Lacs and K.C.C. Limit-II of ₹3.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 for agricultural purpose. To secure both the limits, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The K.C.C. Limit-I was chargeable to interest @12.85% p.a. and K.C.C. Limit-II was chargeable

¶17

¶18

to interest @9.00% p.a. both with half-yearly rests. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors for both the facilities vide Agreement of Guarantee dated 22.09.2015. On 30.11.2023, a sum of ₹34,55,053/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶19

On 05.02.2024, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 04.09.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶20

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Jagatjit Singh, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-11.

¶21

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 ₹25.00 Lacs and on 30.11.2023, a sum of ₹34,55,053/- was due.

¶22

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹34,55,053/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Fifty Five Thousand Fifty Three Only) ₹30,92,935/- in K.C.C. Limit-I with interest @12.85% p.a. and ₹3,62,118/- in K.C.C. Limit-II (both facilities) with interest @9.00% p.a. with half-yearly rests from 30.11.2023, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. 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 defendants.

¶23

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶24

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶25

¶26

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 25.09.2026.

¶27

A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 24.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶28

MANOJ KALRA

Uco Bank v. Shri Sher Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Shri Sher 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

Bank of India versus Pavithra E

Mohammad Azeem Shad and another versus Fullerton India housing finance company limited

Mohd Naseemuddin versus Icici Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Karan Vohra

Hdfc Bank versus Gopal Enterprises

Hdfc Bank versus Kbs Impex Pvt. Ltd.