Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Shri Punjab Singh

DRT20 Aug 2026OA/231/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of ₹37,37,688.26p with interest against two defendants who mortgaged agricultural land for a loan enhanced from ₹14 Lacs to ₹25 Lacs. The Bank proved its case via affidavit and documents, resulting in an order to issue a Recovery Certificate and direct distribution of sale proceeds.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; recovery of ₹37,37,688.26p with interest granted against joint and several liability of defendants via sale of mortgaged land.

Union Bank of India versus Shri Punjab Singh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 231/2024 Date of Institution: 04.01.2024 Date of Decision: 20.08.2026

¶4

Union Bank of India having its branches all over India and a branch at Moga Road, Shahkot, Distt. Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Sh. Punjab Singh s/o Sh. Kulbir Singh;

¶8

Smt. Sarabjit Kaur w/o Sh. Punjab Singh;

¶9

Both residents of: - Village Danewal, Tehsil Shahkot, Distt. Jalandhar, Punjab.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh. Anil Prakash proxy counsel for Mr. I.S. Bhatia, Counsel for the applicant bank along with Sh. Subham Bansal, Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

¶13

Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 25.11.2024 .

¶14

OA for the Recovery of ₹37,37,688.26p with interest @12.05% per annum with half-yearly rests from 04.01.2024. ORDER

¶15

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 ₹37,37,688.26p with interest against Sh. Punjab Singh and another (defendants).

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 25.11.2014, it had granted a loan of ₹14.00 Lacs to the defendants in the form of K.C.C Limit for agricultural purpose. To secure the limit of ₹14.00 Lacs, Defendants had mortgaged their agricultural land (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Again on 15.02.2016, at the request of the defendants, applicant bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹14.00 Lacs to ₹15.00 Lacs. To secure the enhanced limit of ₹15.00 Lacs, Defendants extended the charge of

¶17

¶18

the land mortgaged earlier (fully detailed in para No.5.11 of the application). Again on 01.10.2019, at the request of the defendants, applicant bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹15.00 Lacs to ₹25.00 Lacs. To secure the enhanced limit of ₹25.00 Lacs, Defendants extended the charge of the land mortgaged earlier (fully detailed in para No.5.16 of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @12.05% per annum with half-yearly rests. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 05.04.2023 and 24.08.2022. On 30.11.2023, a sum of ₹37,37,688.26p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶19

On 26.02.2024, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 25.11.2024, they were proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Ankit Vaishnav, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-57. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. Sh. Subham Bansal, Branch Manager of the applicant bank is present along with the original documents which have been perused by me. The same has been returned to him after perusal. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of ₹25.00 Lacs (enhanced from ₹14.00 Lacs) and on 30.11.2023, a sum of ₹37,37,688.26p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹37,37,688.26p (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Thirty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Eight and Paise Twenty Six Only) with interest @12.05% per annum with half-yearly rests from 04.01.2024, till the date

¶20

¶21

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 land 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

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 22.09.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged land and standing crops as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act .

¶25

A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties.

¶26

Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 20.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶27

MANOJ KALRA

Union Bank of India v. Shri Punjab Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Shri Punjab Singh

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

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank versus Sri.Heeru Somalu Lamani

Canara Bank versus Sri.Vijayakumar

Canara Bank versus Sri.Veerendra. D.M

Ms Anjani Kumar Srivastava and Others versus Mansarovar Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Mr Amit Kumar Nag and Anr. versus Axis Bank Limited

Sri Tuhin Kumar Das and Another versus Bank of India