Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Jaspal Singh

DRT7 Jan 2026OA/1078/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery of a defaulted agricultural term loan. After an ex-parte hearing, the Tribunal declared the defendant liable to repay Rs.24,20,944.78 and ordered interest at 8% p.a., permitting recovery via sale of the hypothecated vehicle.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of liability to pay Rs.24,20,944.78 with interest at 8% p.a. Issuance of Recovery Certificate and direction to recover via sale of hypothecated vehicle.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Jaspal Singh — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1078/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 28.07.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 07.01.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India, a body corporate and banking company constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer 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.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

Sh. Jaspal Singh son of Sh. Jung Singh, resident of Village Khunan Kalan, Tehsil Malout and District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab. ….……Defendant

¶9

Advocates:

¶10

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

¶11

Defendant already ex parte vide order dated 26.11.2025

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

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.24,20,944.78 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Twenty Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Four & Paise Seventy Eight Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Abbas Akhter, Constituted 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. 2. The brief facts of the OA that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of Agriculture Term Loan of Rs.24.30 Lacs for

¶14

2 OA/1078/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. JASPAL SINGH

¶15

purchase of Combine Harvester vide Loan Application form dated 02.09.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶16

The applicant sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.24.30 Lacs vide Sanction letter dated 05.09.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶17

Defendant hypothecated Combine Harvester Make: Gill Agriculture Works, Model Bakhsish-930 Supreme, bearing Registration no. PB30AB7294, Engine No. RNHM103308, Chassis No. GAW930C240048. Hypothecation (Vehicles) agreement and Hypothecation Agreement (for Agricultural Advances), both dated 05.09.2024, which are Annexures A7 and A9 to this OA. Tax Invoice dated 11.09.2024, which is Annexure A11 to this OA. Original Registration Certificate of vehicle/Combine Harvester filed on 29.12.2025 vide diary no. 21566 in compliance to order dated 28.11.2025. Documents executed: Demand Promissory note, Letter of continuity, Term loan agreement, Interest Agreement, all dated 05.09.2024, which are Annexures A4 to A6, A8 to this OA; Letter of undertaking from borrower, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Notice dated 02.04.2025 u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, which is Annexure A12 to this OA and Statement of account, which is Annexure A13 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.24,20,944.78, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant 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 vide order dated 26.11.2025.

¶18

3 OA/1078/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. JASPAL SINGH

¶19

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Abbas Akhter, Constituted Attorney, Union Bank of India, has been filed.

¶20

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶21

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 A13 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.24,20,944.78 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Twenty Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Four & Paise Seventy Eight Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶22

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed [email protected]%p.a. with 2% penal interest with half yearly rests from 19.07.2025 till realization.

¶23

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

¶24

4 OA/1078/2025

¶25

UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. JASPAL SINGH

¶26

realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶27

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.24,20,944.78 (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Twenty Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Four & Paise Seventy Eight 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.

¶28

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶30

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 20.01.2026. 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.

¶31

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 07.01.2026

¶32

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

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Jaspal Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Jaspal 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

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhdeep Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Ajit Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Chaichal Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Davinder Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Amrik Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Gurdial Singh