Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Gurpreet Singh

DRT7 Mar 2026OA/1691/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Union Bank of India's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act to recover Rs.20.57 Lacs from Gurpreet Singh. The Tribunal confirmed the loan default and liability, granted uniform simple interest at 8% p.a., and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate for enforcement under SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued against the respondent for Rs.20,57,064.80 plus costs and uniform simple interest @08% p.a. from the date of filing.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1691/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 02.12.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 07.03.2026

¶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, 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

¶8

Sh. Gurpreet Singh Son of Sh. Jarnail Singh, R/o Village Talwandi Malik, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, Punjab.

¶9

….……Defendant

¶10

Advocates:

¶11

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

¶12

Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 29.01.2026

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

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.20,57,064.80 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Sixty Four & Paise Eighty 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.

¶15

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

¶16

2 OA/1691/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. GURPREET SINGH

¶17

Combine Harvester vide loan application dated 12.12.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OА.

¶18

The applicant sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.23.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 14.12.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this ОА and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶19

Defendant hypothecated Combine Harvester Make: BSMS Agriculture Workshop, Model: HARDEV 950, Registration no. PB42E4693, Engine no. PFHM116168, Chassis no. BSMSH950L230027, vide hypothecation agreement (for agricultural advances) dated 14.12.2013, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Registration Certificate of Vehicle, which is Annexure A14 to this OA.

¶20

Documents executed: Declaration/Undertaking for Agricultural Advance, Simple Agreement AD-02A, Letter of Continuity, Simple Loan Agreement, General Term Loan Agreement, Term Loan Agreement (hypothecation of movables), Demand Promissory Note, Interest Agreement, Letter of Undertaking from Borrower, all dated 14.12.2023, which are Annexures A4 to A6 and A8 to A13 to this OA; Demand Notice dated 15.09.2025 u/s 13(2) of SARFEASI Act, which is Annexure A15 to this OA; Notices for adjustment of overdues dated 28.08.2024, 04.09.2024, 10.12.2024, along with postal receipts, which are Annexures A16 to A21 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 26.12.2024, along with postal receipt, which are Annexures A22 and A23 to this OA and Statement of account with certificate, which are Annexures A24 and A25 to this OA .

¶21

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.20,57,064.80, 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.

¶22

3 OA/1691/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. GURPREET SINGH

¶23

The defendant was served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 29.01.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Vipin Chandel, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record 9. 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 A25 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.20,57,064.80 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Sixty Four & Paise Eighty Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account. 10. In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @9.60%p.a. with half yearly rests from 01.10.2025 till realization. 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

¶25

OA/1691/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. GURPREET SINGH

¶26

@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.

¶27

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.20,57,064.80 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Sixty Four & Paise Eighty 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.

¶28

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶29

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 25.03.2026. 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: 07.03.2026.

¶30

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

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Gurpreet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Gurpreet 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

State Bank of India versus M/S Mohan Lal Vikas Kumar and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Nirmal Singh and Others

Bank of Baroda versus Sh. Lakhvir Singh through His Legal Heirs and Another

State Bank of India versus M/S Kula Majra and Company and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jasvinder Singh

State Bank of India versus Smt. Amarjit Kaur and Another