Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Gagandeep Singh

DRT26 Feb 2026OA/1161/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DT-III Chandigarh allowed an ex-parte original application filed by Union Bank of India against Gagandeep Singh for recovery of a term loan of Rs.25.56 Lacs. The court directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate and reduced the claimed interest rate to 8.00% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Issued Recovery Certificate; ordered defendant to pay Rs.25,56,387.94 plus future simple interest @08.00%p.a.; directed recovery from sale of hypothecated vehicle or personal assets.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1161/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 08.07.2025.

¶5

DATE OF DECISION 26.02.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India, a body constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (Act No.5 of 1970) carrying on Banking business and having its Central office at 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 and one of its Branch Offices at Ishwar Nagar, Near Nanaksar Gurudwara, Devigarh Road, Post Office Saphera, Tehsil and District Patiala, Punjab through its Deputy Branch Manager Sh. Davinder Singh.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus Sh. Gagandeep Singh S/o Sh. Kuldeep Singh, R/o Village Khansian Bir Sanaur, Patiala, Punjab-147103. ….……Defendant Advocates:

¶8

Argued by Sh. Ajay Singla, Advocate for applicant (Through VC) Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 09.01.2026

¶9

FINAL ORDER

¶10

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.25,56,387.94 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Fifty Six Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Seven and Paise Ninety Four only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Davinder Singh, Deputy Branch Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application Power of Attorney dated 14.01.2020, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶11

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of Term loan of Rs.25.00 Lacs for purchase of Combine Harvester vide Loan Application dated 25.04.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶12

2 OA/1161/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. GAGANDEEP SINGH

¶13

The applicant sanctioned the Term loan of Rs.25.00 Lacs vide letter of sanction dated 09.05.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant hypothecated Combine Harvester Make: Surindera Agro Industries Model: SURINDRA 930, bearing Registration no. PB11DD4929, Engine No. PLHM409216, Chassis No. SA1930L221457, vide Hypothecation of Vehicles Agreement dated 16.05.2023, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Quotation of Combine Harvester dated 12.04.2023, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Invoice dated 22.05.2023, which are Annexure A13 and A14 to this OA; Form-21 and Form-22 dated 22.05.2023, which are Annexures A15 and A16 to this OA; Delivery challan dated 22.05.2023, which is Annexure A17 to this OA and Registration certificate of vehicle dated 15.06.2023, which is Annexure A18 to this OA. Documents executed: Demand Promissory, Letter of Continuity, General Term Loan Agreement, Term Loan Agreement (hypothecation of movables), Letter of Undertaking not alienate hypothecated of goods, Interest Agreement, all dated 16.05.2023, which are Annexures A5 to A7 and A9 to A12 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 05.06.2025, along with postal receipt, which is Annexure A19 to this OA and statement of account with certificate, which is Annexure A20 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.25,56,387.94, 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 on 09.01.2026.

¶14

3 OA/1161/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. GAGANDEEP SINGH

¶15

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Davinder Singh, Deputy Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, h as been filed.

¶16

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶17

It was argued by learned counsel through video conferencing 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 A20 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.25,56,387.94 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Fifty Six Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Seven and Paise Ninety Four only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶18

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed [email protected]%p.a. inclusive of 2% penal interest with half yearly rests from 01.07.2025 till realization.

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

OA/1161/2025

¶22

UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. GAGANDEEP SINGH

¶23

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

¶24

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.25,56,387.94 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Fifty Six Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Seven and Paise Ninety Four 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 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.

¶25

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶26

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶27

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 16.03.2026.

¶28

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.

¶29

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶30

Dated: 26.02.2026.

¶31

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶32

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Gagandeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Gagandeep 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

Canara Bank versus M/S Anmol Hosiery and Another

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Jatinder Singh and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Harjeet Singh

Bank of India versus Sh. Gurmukh Singh alias gorkha and Others

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Kapur Singh since deceased through LRs

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Sukhchain Singh and Others