Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Balvir Singh

DRT25 Feb 2026OA/1236/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte application by Union Bank of India against Balvir Singh for recovery of INR 21,15,449.54. The tribunal reduced the claimed interest rate to 8% p.a. and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 21,15,449.54 plus simple interest at 8% p.a. from filing date until realization, executable against hypothecated vehicle or personal assets.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1236/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 29.08.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 25.02.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India, a Government of India undertaking, incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and having its Head Office at Union Bank Bhavan,239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Backbay 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/General Attorney, Union Bank of India, Patiala, Gate, Sangrur-148001

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Balvir Singh S/o Sh. Karnail Singh, R/o Village Akalgarh, Teshil Sunam, District Sangrur

¶10

…….Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Gaurav Chadha, Advocate proxy for Sh. Amit Kumar Bhalla, Advocate for the applicant

¶13

Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 15.12.2025

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

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.21,15,449.54 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred Forty Nine and Paise Fifty Four Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Vipin Chande l, 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.

¶16

2 OA/1236/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. BALVIR SINGH

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant No.1 had approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs.21.00 Lacs for purchase of Combine Harvester vide Loan Application dated 29.09.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned sanction the Term Loan of Rs.21.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 06.10.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant hypothecated Combine Harvester Make: New Gurdial Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Model: GURDIAL 651, bearing No. Registration No. PB-13-BR6981, Engine No. TWEM058193 and Chassis No. NGAI651J230259 vide Hypothecation Agreement (for agricultural advances), Hypothecation (Vehicles) Agreement, both dated 06.10.2023, which are Annexures A7 and A8 to this OA; Registration Certificate which is Annexure A15 to this OA. Documents executed: Declaration/undertaking for agriculture advance, Simple Agreement, Letter of continuity, Simple Loan Agreement, General Term Loan Agreement, Term Loan Agreement (hypothecation of movables), DP Note, Interest Agreement, Letter of undertaking from borrower, all dated 06.10.2023 which are Annexures A4 to A6 and A9 to A15 to this OA; Demand notice dated 24.02.2025 under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, which is Annexure A16 to this OA; Legal notices dated 21.06.2025, along with postal receipt, which are Annexures A17 & A18 to this OA; Statement of account with certificates, which are Annexures A19 & A21 to this OA. 5. The loan account became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.21,15,449.54 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.

¶18

3 OA/1236/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. BALVIR SINGH

¶19

The defendant was served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15.12.2025.

¶20

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Vipin Chande l, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India h as been filed.

¶21

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶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 A21 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.21,15,449.54 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred Forty Nine and Paise Fifty Four Only) the along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts. 10. In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed [email protected]% p.a. with half yearly 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

¶24

4 OA/1236/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. BALVIR SINGH

¶25

@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.

¶26

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.21,15,449.54 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred Forty Nine and Paise Fifty 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 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.

¶27

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 12.03.2026 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendant

¶28

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: 25.02.2026.

¶29

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

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Balvir Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Balvir 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

Bank of India versus Sudeep Singh and Others

Reena versus Cent Bank Home Finance Limited

Ms Laavin Polymers and Others versus Punjab National Bank

Bank of India versus Sh. Karnail Singh and Others

Indian Bank versus Sh. Harbhajan Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Harjinder Singh and Others