Allowed

Uco Bank v. Sh. Himanshu Walia and Another

DRT24 Feb 2026OA/1169/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of a dues of Rs.20.59 Lacs against two defendants who took an overdraft facility and failed to repay. The court reduced the interest rate to 8% p.a. and ordered issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Defendants liable to pay Rs.20,59,696.42 with interest @8% p.a.; Recovery from assets.

Uco Bank versus Sh. Himanshu Walia and Another — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1169/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 23.09.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 24.02.2026

¶6

UCO Bank, A Body Corporate Constituted under the Baling Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act no. V of 1970 and having its Head Office at 10-B.T.M., Sarani, Kolkata and one of the Branch amongst other places at UCO Bank, Opposite Govt. Senior Secondary School, Near BSNL Exchange, Lalru, District S.A.S. Nagar Punjab through its Senior Manager Ms. Richa Sood.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Himanshu Walia S/o Sh. Sukh Walia, R/o H. No. 4664/4/5, Palledar Mohalla, Katcha Bazar, Cross Road No.9, Ambala GPO, Haryana -133001.

¶10

Sh. Sukh Pal Singh S/o Sh. Prem Parkash, R/o H. No. 4664/4/5, Palledar Mohalla, Katcha Bazar, Cross Road No.9, Ambala GPO, Haryana -133001.

¶11

………Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate proxy for Sh. Satyapriya Roach, Advocate for applicant

¶14

Defendants already ex-parte vide order dated 12.01.2026

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.20,59,696.42 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Six and Paise Forty Two Only). The Original Application has been filed through Ms. Richa Sood, Senior Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 16.07.2002, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants approached the applicant for Over Draft Limit (Property Loan) of Rs.22.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 15.06.2017, which is Annexure A2 to this OA

¶18

¶19

OA NO.1169/2024 UCO BANK VS SH. HIMANSHU WALIA AND ANOTHER.

¶20

and thereafter, for its renewal vide loan application dated 16.02.2023, which is Annexure A11 to this OA.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned the Over Draft Limit (Property Loan) of Rs.20.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 13.07.2017, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants.

¶22

Defendant no. 1 mortgaged his immovable property i.e. House No. 4664/4-5, Measuring 709.52 Sq. Ft. and 78.83 Sq. Yards situated at Palledar Mohalla, Kuchha Bazar, Cross Road No.9, Ambala, Haryana through equitable mortgage of Title Deed no.3930 dated 04.01.2017, which is Annexure A8 to thus OA; Affidavit dated 14.07.2017, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Confirmation Letter dated 13.07.2017 regarding mortgage, which is Annexure A9 to this OA. Documents Executed : DP Note, DP Note Delivery Letter, Letter of Undertaking, all dated 13.07.2017, which are Annexures A4 to A6 to this OA; Revival Letter/Acknowledgment of Debt/ Balance Confirmation Letter dated 29.08.2019 and 04.09.2021, which are Annexure A10 (Colly) to this OA; DP Note, DP Note Delivery Letter, Letter of Undertaking, all dated 16.02.2023, which are Annexures A12 to A14 to this OA; Recall/ Legal Notice dated 04.09.2024, along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A15 to this OA; Statement of Account with certificate, which are Annexures A16 & A17 to this OA. 5. The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account there was a debit of Rs.20,59,696.42 which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.01.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Ms. Richa Sood, Senior Manage r, UCO Bank has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶23

¶24

OA NO.1169/2024 UCO BANK VS SH. HIMANSHU WALIA AND ANOTHER.

¶25

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 A17 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.20,59,696.42 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Six and Paise Forty Two Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶26

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.70%p.a. with 2% penal interest and monthly rests from 01.09.2024 till the realization.

¶27

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 defendants, 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.

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.20,59,696.42 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Six and Paise Forty Two Only) jointly and severally,

¶29

¶30

OA NO.1169/2024 UCO BANK VS SH. HIMANSHU WALIA AND ANOTHER.

¶31

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 mortgaged properties/hypothecated assets of defendants 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 defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶32

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of .

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 11.03.2026.

¶35

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶36

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 24.02.2026.

¶37

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶38

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Uco Bank v. Sh. Himanshu Walia and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Sh. Himanshu Walia and Another

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

State Bank of India versus Sh. Shabnampreet Singh

Bank of India versus Sh. Nirmal Singh and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Tripat Singh and Others

Sanjeev Rattan and Another versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited and Another

Ms R K Subh and Others versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Uday Pal Singh versus Canara Bank and Another