Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Amarjit Kaur

DRT10 Aug 2026OA/13/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery under Section 19 of the RDB Act. The court held that the bank proved the loan advance and the outstanding dues of ₹24,36,418/- with interest, and ordered the recovery via sale of hypothecated assets and issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Application for recovery of ₹24,36,418/- with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; Party directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 11.09.2026.

Union Bank of India versus Amarjit Kaur — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 13 of 2026 Date of Institution: 01.01.2026 Date of Decision: 10.08.2026

¶4

Union Bank of India having its branches all over India and a branch at Nakodar - Jagraon Road, Near Bus Stand, Mehatpur, Nakodar, Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Amarjit Kaur W/o Soma Singh R/o Village Parjian Kalan, Parjian Biharipur, Sidwan Bet Jagraon, District Ludhiana, Punjab.

¶8

……….Defendant

¶9

Advocates

¶10

Sh. Ajay Singla, Counsel for the applicant bank along with Sh. Rahul Kumar, Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

¶11

Defendant - ex parte .

¶12

OA for the Recovery of ₹24,36,418/- with interest @9% per annum with half-yearly rests from 01.01.2026.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Union Bank of India (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹24,36,418/- with interest against Amarjit Kaur (defendant).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 11.06.2024, it had granted a loan of ₹24.40Lacs to defendant in the form of agricultural loan for the purchase of Farm Machinery. To secure the loan, Defendant had hypothecated vehicle (fully detailed in para No.5.7 of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @9% per annum with half-yearly rests. On 30.11.2025, a sum of ₹24,36,418/- was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶16

¶17

On 23.01.2026, summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 06.07.2026, she proceeded was ex parte .

¶18

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Robin Kumar, Authorised Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-21. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. Sh. Rahul Kumar, Branch Manager is present with the original documents which have been perused by me. The same have been returned to him after perusal. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of ₹24.40Lacs and on 30.11.2015, a sum of ₹24,36,418/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹24,36,418/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Four Hundred Eighteen Only) with interest @9% per annum with half-yearly rests from 01.01.2026, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated vehicle fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Party is directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 11.09.2026. 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the party.

¶19

Pronounced in the open Court.	(A S Narang)
Dated: 10.08.2026	Presiding Officer
	DRT-1, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. Amarjit Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Amarjit Kaur

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Rajiv

Sri Indrajit Sharma versus Uco Bank

Canara Bank versus M/S A.R. Tiles

M/S Qtech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus Punjab National Bank

Uco Bank versus Hamida Bibi

Lala Sab versus Canara Bank