Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Kuldeep Singh

DRT17 Feb 2026OA/1247/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application to recover a term loan. After hearing ex-parte arguments, the court proved the loan default via documentary evidence. It granted recovery of the principal amount with modified simple interest at 8% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.21,75,345.66 with costs and simple interest at 8% p.a. from the filing date until realization, enforceable via sale of hypothecated assets.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1247/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 01.09.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 17.02.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act No. V of 1970 and having its Head Office at Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one of the Branch amongst other places at Bhadson, Teshil Nabha, District Patiala through its General Power of Attorney cum Branch Manager Sh. Manpreet Singh

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Kuldeep Singh S/o Sh. Sarabjeet Singh R/o Village Sakrali, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala-147202 …….Defendant

¶10

Advocates:

¶11

Argued by Sh. Sumant Kumar, Advocate proxy for Sh. Abhineet Taneja, Advocate for the applicant (through VC) Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 07.01.2026

¶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.21,75,345.66 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Three Hundred Forty Five and Paise Sixty Six Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Manpreet Singh, Branch Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 24.01.2025, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶14

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs.23.80 Lacs for purchase of Combine Harvester vide Loan Application dated 01.08.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶15

2 OA/1247/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. KULDEEP SINGH

¶16

The applicant sanctioned sanction the Vehicle of Rs.23.80 Lacs Vide Sanction Letter dated 01.08.2023 which is Annexure A3 to this OA the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant hypothecated Combine Harvester Make: Kartar Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Model: KARTAR-4000 SV, bearing Engine No. PFHM116912 and Chassis No. KARTAR4000SVI230113 vide hypothecation agreement (for agriculture advances) and hypothecation of vehicles agreement, both dated 01.08.2023, which are Annexures A4 and A5 to this OA; Sale Certificate (Form-31) of Combine Harvester, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶17

Documents executed: General Term Loan Agreement, DP Note along with Letter of Continuity, both dated 01.08.2023 which are Annexures A6 and A7 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 01.02.2025, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Statement of account with certificate which is Annexure A10 to this OA.

¶18

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.21,75,345.66 which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notice but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶19

The defendant was served notice to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and was proceeded exparte Vide order date 07.01.2026.

¶20

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Manpreet Singh , Branch Manager, Union Bank of India has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy 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 A10 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan

¶21

3 OA/1247/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. KULDEEP SINGH

¶22

facility which were 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 loans 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 Rs.21,75,345.66 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Three Hundred Forty Five and Paise Sixty Six Only) the along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶23

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @9%p.a. with half yearly rests from 01.07.2025 till the realization.

¶24

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 loans 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.

¶25

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.21,75,345.66 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Three Hundred Forty Five and Paise Sixty Six 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 Combine Harvester of the defendant in

¶26

¶27

OA/1247/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. KULDEEP SINGH

¶28

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.

¶29

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 05.03.2026.

¶32

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.

¶33

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶34

Dated: 17.02.2026

¶35

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer,

¶36

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Kuldeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Kuldeep 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

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Harpreet Singh and Others

Bank of Baroda versus M/S G. K. Engineering and Innovative and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Amandeep Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Bawa Ram

State Bank of India versus M/S Satkar Industries and Another

State Bank of India versus M/S King of Spices and Another