Allowed

Uco Bank v. Manpreet Kumar

DRT28 Apr 2026OA/194/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of approximately Rs. 30.55 Lacs with interest under the RDB Act. The tribunal found the defendants' liability joint and several, permitting recovery via mortgaged or personal property, and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 30,55,715.02 with interest from defendants' personal and mortgaged property; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Uco Bank versus Manpreet Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 194/2025 Date of Institution: 31.01.2025 Date of Decision: 28.04.2026

¶4

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

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mr. Manpreet Kumar s/o Sh. Satnam Ram, r/o Village Khokhewal, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶8

Mrs. Rimpi Kaur w/o Mr. Manpreet Kumar, r/o Village Khokhewal, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Ms. Ritika Kansal proxy counsel for Sh. Mohinder Nath Sharma, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 06.08.2025 .

¶12

OA for the Recovery of ₹30,55,715.02p with interest @9.20% per annum with monthly rests from 31.01.2025.

¶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 ₹30,55,715.02p with interest against Mr. Manpreet Kumar and another (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 25.03.2022, it had granted Term Loan of ₹20.00 Lacs under UCO Home Loan Scheme to defendant No.1 for Housing purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for the Term Loan of ₹20.00Lacs vide guarantee agreement dated 25.03.2022. Again on 16.12.2022, at the request of the defendants, bank granted another Term Loan-II of ₹10.25Lacs to the

¶16

¶17

defendants for Housing Purpose. The loans were chargeable to different rates of interest. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 18.05.2022 and 19.12.2022. On 30.09.2024, a sum of ₹30,55,715.02p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶18

On 07.02.2025, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 06.08.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶19

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Barinder Singh, Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-22.

¶20

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 total loan of ₹30.25Lacs and on 30.09.2024, a sum of ₹30,55,715.02p was due.

¶21

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹30,55,715.02p (Rupees Thirty Lacs Fifty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Fifteen and Paise Two Only) with interest @9.20% per annum with monthly rests from 31.01.2025, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of both the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶22

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶23

Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.

¶24

¶25

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 01.06.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property 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: 28.04.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Uco Bank v. Manpreet Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Manpreet Kumar

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

Punjab National Bank versus Radhey Shyam Trading Company

Mr Prakash Shankar Naidu versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S Babbar Brothers HUF

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Mir Decorations

West Bengal Gramin Bank versus Mr. Amal Paul Prop. of Shibnath Marketing @ Mr Amal Pal and Anr.

Bank of Baroda versus Asha M R