The Tribunal allowed the recovery application filed by Union Bank of India against four defendants for a term loan defaulting on repayment. The court decreed the debt of Rs. 1.45 crore payable with future interest.
Recovery of Rs. 1,45,19,191.70 with future simple interest at 8% p.a., costs, and authorization to sell mortgaged property.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 212/2022
PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 05.01.2022
DATE OF DECISION: 17.06.2026
Union Bank of India, a body constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (Act No. 5 of 1970) carrying on Banking business and having its Central office at 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 and one of its Branch Office at Union Bank of India, Khanpur Kharar, Bansal Tower, Shop No.3, Besan Wali Chungi, Town Road, Kharar Chandigarh Road, Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar, through its Manager and General Attorney, Sh. Prem Raj Chohla.
……..Applicant
Versus
Advocates:
Argued by Sh. Anirudh Gupta, Advocate proxy for Sh. Karan Singla, Advocate for Applicant.
None for Defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 15.06.2026)
2
OA/212/2022 UINION BANK OF INDIA VS. SH. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS
FINAL ORDER
Documents executed: Demand Promissory Note dated 08.02.2017, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Letter of Continuity dated
3
OA/212/2022 UINION BANK OF INDIA VS. SH. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS
08.02.2017, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Interest Agreement dated 08.02.2017, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; General Term Loan Agreement dated 08.02.2017, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Letter of Confirmation dated 08.02.2017, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Letters of Guarantee dated 08.02.2017, which are Annexure A9 (Colly) to this OA; Letter AD02A dated 08.02.2017, which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Letter of Undertaking from Guarantor dated 08.02.2017, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; Letter of Undertaking from Borrower dated 08.02.2017, which is Annexure A12 to this OA; Letter of Disbursement of Loan dated 08.02.2017, which is Annexure A13 to this OA; Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dated 08.02.2017, which is Annexure A14 to this OA; Acknowledgement of Debt dated 31.01.2020, which is Annexure A16 to this OA; Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act dated 06.04.2021, which is Annexure A17 to this OA; Account Statement for the period 09.02.2017 to 30.11.2021, which is Annexure A18 to this OA. 5. The loan 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.1,45,19,191.70 (Rupees One Crore Forty Five Lacs Nineteen Thousand One Hundred Ninety One and Paise Seventy 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 but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15.06.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Prem Raj Chohla , Manager, Union B ank of India, has been filed. 8. Heard arguments and perused record.
4
OA/212/2022 UINION BANK OF INDIA VS. SH. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS
From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A18 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached the 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, 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.1,45,19,191.70 (Rupees One Crore Forty Five Lacs Nineteen Thousand One Hundred Ninety One and Paise Seventy 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.
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 @08.00% 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.
5
OA/212/2022 UINION BANK OF INDIA VS. SH. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS
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 mortgaged property of the defendant nos. 1 & 2 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.
12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.
Dated: 17.06.2026.
(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)
Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to recover the outstanding debt along with interest from the defendants.
Whether interest rate should be adjusted considering market trends and mortgaged property value.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Union Bank of India
Satish Kumar Gupta
Pardeep Kumar
Raman Kumar
Vinod Kumar
Mridulesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
