Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Shivkant

DRT24 Feb 2026OA/1234/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant's original application under RDB Act, 1993. The defendant, who borrowed a term loan and failed to repay, was proceeded ex-parte. The court ordered recovery of the principal sum with simple interest at 8% per annum instead of the claimed 9.50%. The recovery is enforceable via sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of principal Rs. 21,90,770.68 with simple interest at 8% per annum from filing date until realization; Recovery Certificate issued.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1234/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 29.08.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 24.02.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India, A Government of India Undertaking incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfers of Undertaking) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Backpay Reclamation, Nariman Point, Mumbai, carrying on the business of banking at various places, throughout India including a branch at Patiala Gate, Sangrur, through its Branch Manager Sh. Vipin Chandel, Principal Officer/ General Attorney, Union Bank of India, Patiala Gate, Sangrur-148001.

¶7

……..Applicant Versus Sh. Shivkant S/o of Sh. Jaswinder Singh R/o of Village Talwandi Malik, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala.

¶8

….……Defendant

¶9

Advocates:

¶10

Argued by Sh. Amit Kumar Bhalla, Advocate for the applicant (through VC)

¶11

Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 15.12.2025.

¶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.21,90,770.68 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Ninety Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy and Paise Sixty Eight Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Vipin Chandel, Branch Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 19.03.2015, which is Annexure A1 to this OA

¶14

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant approached the applicant grant Term Loan of Rs.23.00 Lacs for purchase Combine

¶15

2 OA/1234/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. SHIVKANT

¶16

Harvester vide Loan Application dated 29.11.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶17

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.23.00 Lacs vide sanction Letter dated 30.11.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA. 4. Defendant hypothecated Combine Harvester Make: BSMS Agriculture Workshop, Model: HARDEV 950, bearing Registration No. PB42E4495, Engine No. PEHM118965, Chassis No. BSMSH950L230025 vide Hypothecation Agreement (for agricultural advances), Hypothecation (Vehicles) Agreement, both dated 30.11.2023, which are Annexures A7 and A8 to this OA; Registration Certificate of Combine Harvester, which is Annexure A15 to this OA. Documents Executed: Declaration/Undertaking for agriculture advance, Letter of Continuity, Simple Loan Agreement, General Term Loan Agreement, Term Loan Agreement (hypothecation of movables) Interest Agreement, Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Undertaking from Borrower, all dated 30.11.2023, which are Annexures A4 to A6, and A9 to A14 to this OA; Demand Notice dated 24.02.2025 Under Section 13(2) of SARFEASI Act, which is Annexure A16 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 26.12.2024 and 10.02.2025, along with postal receipts, which are Annexures A17 to A20 to this OA; Statement of Account with certificate, which are Annexures A21 and A22 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. 21,90,770.68 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 15.12.2025.

¶18

3 OA/1234/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. SHIVKANT

¶19

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Vipin Chandel, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India has been filed.

¶20

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record

¶21

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 A22 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.21,90,770.68 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Ninety Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy One and Paise Sixty 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 pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @9.50%p.a. with monthly rests from 01.07.2025 till the 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 realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶24

4 OA/1234/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. SHIVKANT

¶25

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum Rs.21,90,770.68 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Ninety Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy One and Paise Sixty 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.

¶26

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 11.03.2026. 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: 24.02.2026. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Shivkant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Shivkant

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