Allowed

Uco Bank v. M/S Karwal Gas Service

DRT9 Apr 2026OA/1746/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

UCO Bank filed an application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of dues totaling ₹1.36 crore with interest against borrowers and a guarantor. The bank proved the case via affidavit and documents since defendants appeared ex parte. The tribunal allowed the application and ordered recovery through sale of mortgaged assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹1,36,64,714.70 with interest at 12% per annum; issuance of recovery certificate; direction to sell mortgaged properties and distribute proceeds.

Uco Bank versus M/S Karwal Gas Service — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1746/2023 Date of Institution: 30.09.2023 Date of Decision: 09.04.2026

¶4

UCO Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Adampur, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

M/s Karwal Gas Service, Main Road Adampur Doaba, District Jalandhar through its proprietor Mr. Harjinder Singh s/o Sh. Balwant Singh.

¶7

Harjinder Singh s/o Sh. Balwant Singh, r/o H.No.2066/7, Near Karwal Gas Agency, Main Road Adampur Doaba, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶8

Sh. Iqbal Singh s/o Sh. Balwant Singh, r/o Mohalla Kalrian, Adampur Doaba, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Sh. Nonish Kumar, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 23.07.2024 .

¶12

OA for the Recovery of ₹1,36,64,714.70p with interest @12% per annum with monthly rests from 30.09.2023.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

UCO Bank has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹1,36,64,714.70p with interest against M/s Karwal Gas Service and others (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 30.03.2021, it had granted C.C. Limit of ₹95.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 for Business purpose. Again on 25.06.2021, at the request of the defendants, applicant bank restructured the C.C. Limit and granted a Term Loan (FITL) of ₹21.00 Lacs. Again on 07.07.2022, at the request

¶16

¶17

of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing C.C. Limit from ₹95.00 Lacs to ₹99.00 Lacs. Defendant No.3 stood as guarantor for the enhanced C.C. Limit vide guarantee deed dated 07.07.2022. Again on 18.11.2022, at the request of the defendants, bank granted an Adhoc limit of ₹15.00Lacs. To secure all the loan facilities, Defendant Nos.2 and 3 had mortgaged their properties (fully detailed in para No.5.11 and 5.12 of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @12% per annum with monthly rests. On 12.09.2023, a sum of ₹1,36,64,714.70p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶18

On 20.10.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 23.07.2024, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶19

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Dinesh Verma, Senior Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-29. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loans under various schemes and on 12.09.2023, a sum of ₹1,36,64,714.70p was due.

¶20

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹1,36,64,714.70p (Rupees One Crore Thirty Six Lacs Sixty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fourteen and Paise Seventy Only) with interest @12% per annum with monthly rests from 30.09.2023, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged properties and hypothecated assets fully detailed in

¶21

¶22

para No.5.11. and 5.12 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 12.05.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property and hypothecated assets as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 09.04.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶23

MANOJ KALRA

Uco Bank v. M/S Karwal Gas Service

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. M/S Karwal Gas Service

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

Union Bank of India versus Swati Enterprises

Ms Maihar Enterprises versus Hdfc Bank

Canara Bank versus Kashmir Singh

Brij Mohan Sharma versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Ms Aryan Nandani Embroidery and Another versus Sammaan Capital Limited

Central Bank of India versus M/S Vijaylakshmi Egg Foods