Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Malkit Singh

DRT20 Mar 2026OA/1019/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 24.84 lakhs from Malkit Singh. The court discarded the applicant's claimed 11% interest rate and ordered recovery of the principal plus a uniform simple interest of 8% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of liability to pay principal sum with simple interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application till realization.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Malkit Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1019/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 15.07.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 20.03.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank), a Body Corporate Constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970, having its Central Office at 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 and inter alia a Branch Offices at Chamber Road, Opposite Head Post Office, Moga, Punjab through its Branch Manager, Sh. Balram Gera.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Malkit Singh S/o Sh. Mukand Singh, R/o Patti Budha, Takhanwad, District Moga, Punjab

¶10

….……Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Karan Singla, Advocate for the applicant (through VC) Sh. NS Kanda, Advocate for Defendant

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.24,84,474.91 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Four and Paise Ninety one only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Balram Gera, Branch Manager o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Authority Letter dated 21.07.2025, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶15

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of Term Loan of Rs.23,50,000/- for purchasing of Combine Harvester vide Loan application dated 15.01.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶16

2 OA/1019/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS MALKIT SINGH

¶17

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.23,50,000/- for purchasing of Combine Harvester vide Sanction letter dated 08.02.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶18

The defendant hypothecated his moveable assets i.e. Combine Harvester Model: JMB076, Make: JMSSP Agro Industries Private Limited, bearing Reg. No. PB-29-AG-1379, Engine No. PEHM119629, Chassis No. JMSSPJMB06B240024 vide Hypothecation of vehicles agreement and Hypothecation Agreement for agricultural advances, both dated 13.02.2024, which are Annexures A4 and A5 to this OA; Quotation dated 15.01.2024 which is Annexure A12 to this OA; Registration Certificate, which is Annexure A13 to this OA.

¶19

Documents executed : DP Note, Interest Agreement, Letter of Continuity, Simple Loan Agreement, Loan Agreement for Agriculture Advances, Letter Undertaking from Borrower, all dated 13.02.2024 which are Annexures A4 to A11 to this OA; A, Notice dated 20.02.2025 which is Annexure A14 to this OA; Statement of account with certificate, which is Annexure A15 to this OA.

¶20

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.24,84,474.91 which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notice but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶21

The defendant was served notice to appear before this Tribunal. Sh. N S Kanda, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendant on 11.09.2025 and filed his Power of Attorney on behalf of defendant. However, no WS was filed by defendant, the opportunity to file WS by defendant was closed and his defense was struck off vide order dated 06.03.2026.

¶22

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Balram Gera, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, h as been filed.

¶23

3 OA/1019/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS MALKIT SINGH

¶24

Heard arguments and perused record.

¶25

It was argued by learned counsel for applicant through Video Conferencing that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶26

The learned counsel for defendant did not argued on the OA.

¶27

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A15 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him and for that he executed all the relevant documents in favour of the applicant. The defendant failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, the account of the defendant was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.24,84,474.91 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Four and Paise Ninety one only) with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶28

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @9.00%p.a plus 2% penal interest with quarterly rests from 05.07.2025 till the realization.

¶29

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 instant case including nature of the hypothecated assets, undertaking of the defendant, 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 @8.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶30

4 OA/1019/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS MALKIT SINGH

¶31

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.24,84,474.91 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Four and Paise Ninety one only), with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%p.a. in the loan account 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 vehicle of the defendant 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 defendant. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 13.04.2026. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendant 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 . Dated: 20.03.2026. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Malkit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Malkit 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 National Bank versus Sh. Karnail Singh through His Legal Heirs and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Karam Singh

Jagtar Singh versus Bank of Baroda

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Anil Verma and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Majid Transport Company and Others

Indian Bank versus M/S Jai Mahadev Hosiery and Others