Allowed

Uco Bank v. M/s Raj Motors and Another

DRT23 Feb 2026OA/1558/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte application filed by UCO Bank against M/s Raj Motors and proprietor Sukhwinder Singh for recovery of a loan account of approx. Rs. 24 lakhs. The tribunal decreed uniform simple interest at 8% p.a. and directed issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 23,99,948.89 with interest @8% p.a. from filing of OA; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Uco Bank versus M/s Raj Motors and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1558/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 06.11.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 23.02.2026

¶6

UCO Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head office at 10-B.T.M, Sarani, Kolkata (A Government of India Undertaking) and having one of its Branch situated at Ajauli, District Ropar, through Sh. Rahul Kumar Singh, Branch Manager, Branch Constituted Power of Attorney Holder of the bank and Principal Officer.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Raj Motors, Nangal Chandigarh Highway, Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar, Punjab-140118 through its proprietor Sh. Sukhwinder Singh

¶10

Sh. Sukhwinder Singh S/o Sh. Satpal, R/o Village Bandlehri, Near Govt. Primary School, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar, Punjab-141025

¶11

…….Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Ankit Kamboj, Advocate proxy for Sh. Munish Mittal, Advocate for the applicant

¶14

Defendants already ex-parte vide order dated 09.01.206

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.23,99,948.89 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Eight and Paise Eighty Nine Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Rahul Kumar Singh, Branch Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Circular/Memorandum dated 20.07.2012 which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶17

¶18

OA NO.1558/2025 UCO BANK VS. M/S RAJ MOTORS AND ANOTHER

¶19

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for the grant Cash Credit Limit of Rs.30.00 Lacs vide loan application dated 14.01.2013 which is Annexure A2 to this OA; Statement of means dated 14.01.2013, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. Thereafter, the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for the grant of renewal of the Limit vide renewal application dated 21.01.2017, 25.03.2022, 08.11.2023, which are Annexures A13, A18 and A24 to this OA.

¶20

The applicant sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs.24.00 Lacs vide Sanction letter dated 15.01.2013, which is Annexure A11 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Pre sanction inspection report dated 10.01.2013, which is Annexure A4 to this OA. Thereafter, the limit was renewed by the applicant. Renewal sanction letter dated 08.11.2023, which is Annexure A25 to this OA.

¶21

Defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 hypothecated stock vide agreement of hypothecation of goods to secure demand cash credit dated 15.01.2013 and 25.03.2022, which are Annexures A10 and A22 to this OA.

¶22

Defendant no. 2 mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land measuring 1Kanal-1Marla situated at Village Bandhlehri, Hadbast No.289, Tehsil Nangal, District Ropar, Punjab vide mortgage deed bearing vasika no. 1480 dated 09.01.2013, along with its translation which are Annexures A7 to A7A to this OA; Jamabandi for the year 2017-18, along with its translation, which is Annexure A8 and A8A to this OA; Non encumbrance certificate dated 04.01.2013, along with its translation, which are Annexures A5 and A5A to this OA; Advocate report dated 07.01.2013, which is Annexure A6 to this OA. Documents executed: DP Note, dated 15.01.2023, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Acknowledgement of Debt/Security dated 13.01.2016, which is Annexure A12 to this OA; Balance and security confirmation letter dated 26.12.2017, which is Annexure A15 to this

¶23

¶24

OA NO.1558/2025 UCO BANK VS. M/S RAJ MOTORS AND ANOTHER

¶25

OA; Acknowledgement of Debt/Security dated 21.01.2020, which is Annexure A16 to this OA; Balance and security confirmation letter dated 17.06.2021, which is Annexure A17 to this OA; DP Note, Waive Presentment, Consent regarding interest, Balance and security confirmation letter, all dated 25.03.2022 which are Annexures A19 to A21 and A23 to this OA; Acknowledgment of Debt/Security dated 08.11.2023 which is Annexure A26 to this OA; Recall Notice dated 08.05.2025 and 13.06.2025, which are Annexures A27 and A28 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 01.07.2025, which is Annexure A29 to this OA and Statement of Account which is Annexure A30 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.23,99,948.89 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 09.01.2026.

¶26

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Rahul Kumar Singh, Branch Manager, UCO Bank has been filed.

¶27

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶28

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 A30 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 is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.23,99,948.89 (Rupees

¶29

¶30

OA NO.1558/2025 UCO BANK VS. M/S RAJ MOTORS AND ANOTHER

¶31

Twenty Three Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Eight and Paise Eighty Nine 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.

¶32

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @9.80% p.a. with monthly rests from 01.04.2025 till the realization.

¶33

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. 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.

¶34

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.23,99,948.89 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Eight and Paise Eighty Nine Only), jointly and severally, 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 amounts. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated assets/mortgaged properties of the 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.

¶35

¶36

OA NO.1558/2025 UCO BANK VS. M/S RAJ MOTORS AND ANOTHER

¶37

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 09.03.2026. 15. 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.

¶38

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal. Dated: 23.02.2026.

¶39

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

Uco Bank v. M/s Raj Motors and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. M/s Raj Motors 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. Rafiq Ahmad and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Kulwant Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Raghbir Singh and Another

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Late Sh. Jassa Singh through His Legal Heirs

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Amarjit Singh and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Dewan Singh