Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Shinda Singh

DRT16 Mar 2026OA/1036/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Union Bank of India under Section 19 RDB Act. The defendant failed to repay a term loan of Rs.23.80 Crores, leading to an outstanding dues declaration. The Tribunal granted recovery and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate subject to a uniform simple interest rate of 8% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued; defendant declared liable to pay Rs.24,70,190.51 with simple interest at 8% p.a.; claim to be enforced by sale of hypothecated vehicle or attachment of personal assets.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Shinda Singh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1036/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 24.07.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 16.03.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India, a body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfers of Undertaking) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 and amongst other places Branch at New Grain Market, Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab through Sh. Abbas Akhter, Constituted Attorney of Applicant Bank.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sh. Shinda Singh S/o Sh. Chiman Singh, R/o Village Jhuge Ranjitgarh, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab.

¶9

….……Defendant

¶10

Advocates:

¶11

Argued by Ms. Seerat Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh. Pankaj Beri, Advocate for the applicant

¶12

Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 13.11.2025

¶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.24,70,190.51 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Seventy Thousand One Hundred Ninety and Paise Fifty One Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Abbas Akhter , C onstituted Attorney of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 22.10.2018 , 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.23.80 Lacs for purchase of Combine Harvester vide Loan application dated 10.07.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶16

2 OA/1036/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. SHINDA SINGH

¶17

The applicant Bank sanctioned the Union Agri. Infrastructure of Rs.23.80 Lacs vide Sanction letter dated 20.07.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶18

Defendant hypothecated Combine Harvester Make: MATHARU ENGINEERING AGRI WORKS, Model: MATHARU 4600, bearing Registration no. PB30AA2580, Engine no. VPH490552 and Chassis no. MEAW46001231616 vide Hypothecation (Vehicles) Agreements and Hypothecation Agreement for (Agriculture Advances), both dated 20.07.2023, which are Annexures A7 and A9 to this OA.

¶19

Registration Certificate of Vehicle filed on 22.12.2025 vide diary no. 21307 in compliance to order dated 25.11.2025.

¶20

Documents executed: Demand Promissory note, Letter of continuity, Term loan agreement, Interest agreement, Simple loan agreement, Letter of undertaking from the borrower, all dated 20.07.2023, which are Annexures A4 to A6, A8, A10 and A11 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 08.02.2025, which is Annexure A12 to this OA; Notice dated 17.02.2025 u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, which is Annexure A13 to this OA and Statement of account, which is Annexure A14 to this OA. 5. 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.24,70,190.51, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant bank requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendant was served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte on 21.11.2025. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Abbas Akhtar, Constituted Attorne y, Union Bank of India, has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶21

3 OA/1036/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. SHINDA SINGH

¶22

It was argued by learned proxy 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 defendant 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 defendant failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, 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.24,70,190.51 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Seventy Thousand One Hundred Ninety and Paise Fifty One Only), along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶23

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.00%p.a. with half yearly rests from 19.07.2025 till the realization.

¶24

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 mortgaged property/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 @08.00%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.

¶25

4 OA/1036/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. SHINDA SINGH

¶26

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum Rs.24,70,190.51 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Seventy Thousand One Hundred Ninety and Paise Fifty One Only), with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%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 06.04.2026. 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: 16.03.2026.

¶27

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Shinda Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Shinda 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 Ltd. versus Sh. Sarbjit Singh and Others

Varinderpal Singh and Another versus the Tarn Taran Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Another

Varinder Verma and Another versus Hindu Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Kuldeep Singh and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Sukhwinder Singh through His Legal Heir

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Abhiraj Industries and Another