Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/s Singla Trading Company

DRT17 Feb 2026OA/2052/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's Section 19 OA under the RDB Act for recovery of ₹25.31 Lakhs plus interest against the defendant company and proprietor, dismissing the ex parte defence insufficient to contest the proven loan liability.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹25,31,030.30 plus interest @10.55% p.a. from sale of hypothecated assets or personal property; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/s Singla Trading Company — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 2052/2024 Date of Institution: 30.12.2024 Date of Decision: 19.02.2026

¶4

Union Bank of India having its branches all over India and a branch at Shop No. 5-6, Fauzi Complex, Sai Road, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Singla Trading Company through its Proprietor, Village Khokra, Pinjore, Nalagarh Highway, Pinjore, Haryana, r/o House No. 465- P, Sector-21, Panchkula, Haryana.

¶8

Smt. Anju Singhal w/o Dinesh Singhal, Proprietor, M/s Singla Trading Company, r/o House No. 465-P, Sector-21, Panchkula, Haryana.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Mr. Dheeraj proxy counsel for Sh. Mahesh Dheer, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 05.08.2025 .

¶12

OA for the Recovery of ₹25,31,030.30p with interest @10.55% per annum with monthly rests from 30.12.2024.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Union Bank of India has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹25,31,030.30p with interest against M/s Singla Trading Company and another (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 21.10.2022, it had granted a loan of ₹25.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 in the form of C.C Limit for Business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.2 had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in the hypothecation agreement). Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor vide deed of guarantee

¶16

¶17

dated 21.10.2022. The loan was chargeable to interest @10.55% per annum with monthly rests. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 07.02.2024. On 07.05.2024, a sum of ₹25,31,030.30p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶18

On 10.01.2025, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 05.08.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶19

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Geet Suri, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-16.

¶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 the loan of ₹25.00 Lacs and on 07.05.2024, a sum of ₹25,31,030.30p was due.

¶21

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹25,31,030.30p (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Thirty One Thousand Thirty and Paise Thirty Only) with interest @10.55% per annum with monthly rests from 30.12.2024, 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 hypothecated assets fully detailed in hypothecation agreement 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

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on

¶25

01.04.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the

¶26

¶27

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: 19.02.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Union Bank of India v. M/s Singla Trading Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/s Singla Trading Company

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S Bhagwati Enterprises

Icici Bank Limited versus Ram Krishan

Hdfc Bank versus Gurlal Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Shreyam Enterprise

Hasna Bewa versus Punjab National Bank

Bank of India versus Shri Raman Kumar Alias Raman