Allowed

Uco Bank v. Smt. Reena Rani and Another

DRT11 Jun 2026OA/1692/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

XDRT admitted UCO Bank's ex-parte OA against defendants for recovery of Rs.23,87,673 arising from a 2023 home loan default. The Tribunal allowed the application, fixed interest at 7.95% p.a., and directed issuance of Recovery Certificate for enforcement under SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.23,87,673 with simple interest @ 7.95% p.a.; Issuance of Recovery Certificate; liberty to enforce sale of mortgaged property and personal assets.

Uco Bank versus Smt. Reena Rani and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.1692/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 06.12.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 11.06.2026

¶6

UCO BANK, a Body Corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings Act 1970, having its Head Office at 10, Brabourn Road, Kolkata and its Branches throughout India and amongst other Branches having a Branch Office at Alamgir Branch, Ludhiana, through its constituted attorney Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Alamgir Branch, Ludhiana and who is also the principal officer of the applicant/ plaintiff bank.

¶7

........A pplicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Smt. Reena Rani W/o Sh. Palwinder Singh, R/o House no. # 7167, Street no. 4, Daba, Lohara Road, Maha Singh Nagar, Millerganj, Ludhiana - 141116.

¶10

Sh. Palwinder Singh S/o Sh. Ratan Singh, R/o House no. #7167, Street no.4, Daba, Lohara Road, Maha Singh Nagar, Ludhiana141116.

¶11

........Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued Sh. Aseem Kataria, Advocate proxy for Sh. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate for the applicant

¶14

None for defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 09.06.2026).

¶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.23,87,673.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Eighty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Three Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh.

¶17

Sukhwinder Singh, Branch Manager, who is competent to institute the

¶18

2 OA NO.1692/2025 UCO BANK VS SMT. REENA RANI AND ANOTHER

¶19

Original Application vide Circular of the Bank dated 20.07.2012, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan under UCO Home Loan Scheme of Rs.24,21,496.00 vide Application for Term Loan under UCO Home Loan Scheme dated 06.09.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan under UCO Home Loan Scheme of Rs.24,21,496.00 vide Sanction Letter dated 16.09.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no. 1 mortgaged her immovable property i.e., Plot measuring 84 Square Yards, situated at Village Lohara, Hadbast No. 260, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, Abadi Dhillon Nagar, Ludhiana, as per Jamabandi for the year 2009-2010 vide Title Deed serial no. 202324/103/1/7212 dated 18.09.2023 along with its translation and Confirming Letter dated 22.09.2023 for deposit of Title Deed, which are Annexures A7 & A8 to this OA.

¶22

Documents executed : Loan Agreement, Demand Promissory Note (A2), Revival Letter, all dated 16.09.2023, which are Annexures A4 to A6 to this OA; Statement of account along with certificate, which is Annexure A9 to this OA.

¶23

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.23,87,673.00, 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 summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09.06.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Branch Manager, UCO Bank has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶24

3 OA NO.1692/2025 UCO BANK VS SMT. REENA RANI AND ANOTHER

¶25

It was argued by learned proxy counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶26

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A9 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, loan account was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.23,87,673.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Eighty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Three Only), along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶27

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @7.95%p.a. with penal interest @2.00% with monthly rests from 01.03.2025 till the realization.

¶28

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, 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 simple interest @07.95%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.

¶29

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.23,87,673.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Eighty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Three Only), jointly and severally, with

¶30

¶31

OA NO.1692/2025 UCO BANK VS SMT. REENA RANI AND ANOTHER

¶32

costs, current and future simple interest @07.95%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 mortgaged property of the defendant no. 1 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.

¶33

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 25.06.2026.

¶36

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.

¶37

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶38

Dated: 11.06.2026

¶39

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶40

Presiding Officer,

¶41

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Uco Bank v. Smt. Reena Rani and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Smt. Reena Rani 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

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S Aadhya Fashion and Another

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Sukhdeep Singh and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jaspreet Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Nanaksar Infra and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/s Aalam Enterprises and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Pankaj Kumar