Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Messrs Saas Foods

DRT27 May 2026OA/20/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DR Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 24,99,357.26 outstanding from loan defaulers. The court struck out the defense due to lack of waiver statement and allowed the application with interest at 8% p.a., permitting recovery through hypothecated assets or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 24,99,357.26 plus simple interest at 8% p.a., enforceable via sale of hypothecated assets or attachment of personal assets.

Union Bank of India versus Messrs Saas Foods — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 20/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 03.01.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 27.05.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) a Body Corporate Constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Central Office at 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 and inter alia a Branch at Show Room No. 5-6, Chiranji Enclave Zirakpur, District Mohali, SAS Nagar, Punjab through its Branch Manager, Ms. Divya Mishra.

¶7

, ……..Applicant Versus

¶8

M/S SAAS Foods, through Proprietor Smt. Shveta Jagdev, SCO

¶9

No. 15. Sector 79, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab.

¶10

Smt. Shveta Jagdev Wife of Sh. Anup Jagdev, R/o Kothi No. 161,

¶11

Phase 6, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab.

¶12

.……Defendants

¶13

Advocate:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Karan Singla, Advocate for the applicant (through VC) Ms. Neha Arora, Advocate proxy for Sh. Harinder Pal Singh, Advocate for Defendants.

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 24,99,357.26 (Rupees Twenty Four Lac Ninety Nine Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Seven & Paise Twenty Six only). The Original Application has been filed through Ms. Divya Mishra, Branch Manager, of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 07.11.2018, which is Annexure A-1 to this OA.

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the Defendant No.1, through its Proprietor defendant no.2, approached the applicant for the grant of

¶18

¶19

OA/20/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS M/S SAAS FOODS AND ANOTHER

¶20

Term Loan Facility of Rs.30,00,000.00 vide Loan Application dated 10.11.2022, which is Annexure A-2 to this OA

¶21

The applicant sanctioned the term loan facility of Rs.30,00,000.00 vide Sanction Letter dated 13.07.2023, which is Annexure A-3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant No.1, through its Proprietor defendant no.2, hypothecated its Goods and Stock & Book Debts vide Hypothecation Goods Agreement dated 23.12.2022, which is Annexure A-4 to this OA.

¶22

Documents executed : Demand Promissory Note dated 23.12.2022, which is Annexure A-5 to this OA; Letter of Continuity dated 23.12.2022, which is Annexure A-6 to this OA; Request Letter dated 23.12.2022, which is Annexure A-7 to this OA; Letter of Undertaking from Borrower(s) dated 23.12.2022, which is Annexure A-8 to this OA; Agreement to be stamped as Simple Agreement dated 23.12.2022, which is Annexure A-9 to this OA; Interest Agreement dated 23.12.2022, which is Annexure A-10 to this OA; Notice dated 12.12.2024, which is Annexure A-11 to this OA; Account Statement along with Banker’s Certificate, which is Annexure A-12 to this OA. 5. The account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account, there was a debit of Rs. 24,99,357.26 (Rupees Twenty Four Lac Ninety Nine Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Seven & Paise Twenty Six only), 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 and after the service of summons upon the defendants, Sh. Harinder Pal Singh, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the defendants and filed his Power of Attorney on 03.05.2025. Paper Book was supplied to the counsel for the defendants on 01.01.2026. Since, no WS was filed on behalf of defendants even after spatulated time, therefore, opportunity to file WS by defendants stood closed and defense was struck of vide order dated 21.05.2026.

¶23

¶24

OA/20/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS M/S SAAS FOODS AND ANOTHER

¶25

In support of the OA, affidavit of Ms. Divya Mishra , Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, has been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel for applicant, through video conferencing, that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. Proxy learned counsel on behalf of defendants, was present but she did not advance any argument on OA. From the perusal of all the Annexures A-1 to A-12 to this OA, it is proved that the Defendant No.1, through its Proprietor defendant no.2, approached applicant for availing of the Loan Facility, which was granted to them. 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, the 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. 24,99,357.26 (Rupees Twenty Four Lac Ninety Nine Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Seven & Paise Twenty Six 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.

¶26

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant has claimed interest @ 11.55% p.a. with quarterly rests from 11.12.2024 till the realization.

¶27

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 hypothecated asset, 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 @08.00% p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount.

¶28

¶29

OA/20/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS M/S SAAS FOODS AND ANOTHER

¶30

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs. 24,99,357.26 (Rupees Twenty Four Lac Ninety Nine Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Seven & Paise Twenty Six only), jointly and severally, 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 asset 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.

¶31

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶32

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶33

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 18.06.2026

¶34

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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 27.05.2026

¶35

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶36

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. Messrs Saas Foods

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Messrs Saas Foods

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Jaswant Singh and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Gurwinder Singh and Another

Yes Bank versus G N Transport Company and others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Mehar Deen

Bank of India versus Sh. Tehal Singh and Another

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Gurlal Singh and Another