Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S D R Selections and Another

DRT20 Jun 2026OA/259/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues. After an ex-parte hearing, the court ruled in favor of the bank to recover the principal amount along with future simple interest at 8% per annum, permitting recovery through asset sales or attachment under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of liability to pay Rs. 38,24,294.80 plus costs and future simple interest @ 8% p.a. Recovery Certificate issued. Founders of registered case.

Union Bank of India versus M/S D R Selections and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 259/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 07.02.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 20.06.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India, a Body Corporate duly constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Central Office at 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 and inter alia a Branch Office at 41/2, Walia Complex, Dugri Road, Ludhiana, Punjab- 141003 through its Branch Manager/Authorized Officer, Sh. Gaurav Mishra

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/S D R Selections, 2168, Street no. 3, Ward no. 19, Kuldeep Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab- 141007 through its Proprietor, Sh. Varun Verma

¶10

2^nd Address: Plot no. 582, Street no. 2, Attal Nagar, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhina, Punjb- 141007

¶11

Sh. Varun Verma, S/o Sh. Dharminder Verma, Proprietor M/S D R Selections, R/o 2168, Street no. 3, Ward no. 19, Kuldeep Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab- 141007

¶12

…..Defendants

¶13

Advocates:

¶14

Argued by Sh. Tejinder Singh, Advocate proxy Sh. Sumeet Sehgal, Advocate for applicant

¶15

None for defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 16.06.2026)

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 38,24,294.80 (Rupees Thirty Eight Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Four and Paise Eighty

¶18

2 OA NO. 259/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. M/S D R SELECTIONS AND ANOTHER

¶19

Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Gaurav Mishra, Branch Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 10.12.2018, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for grant of CC Limit of Rs. 10.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 27.06.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for enhancement of CC Limit to Rs. 25.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 18.03.2024, which is Annexure A12 to this OA. Thereafter, defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs. 10.80 Lacs.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned CC Limit of Rs. 10.00 Lacs vide Sanctioned Letter dated 07.07.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned enhancement of CC Limit to Rs.25.00 Lacs vide Sanctioned Letter dated 18.03.2024, which is Annexure A13 to this OA. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned Term Loan of Rs. 10.80 Lacs vide Sanctioned Letter dated 08.11.2024, which is Annexure A23 to this OA.

¶22

Defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 hypothecated their stocks and book debts vide Hypothecation Agreements dated 07.07.2023, 18.03.2024 and 08.11.2024, which are Annexure A4, A14 and A32 to this OA.

¶23

Documents executed: DP Note, Letter of Continuity, AD-02A, Letter of Undertaking not to alienate hypothecated goods, Letters of Undertaking and Deed of Guarantee, all dated 07.07.2023, which are Annexure A5 to A11 to this OA; DP Note, Interest Agreement, Letter of Continuity, AD-02A, Letter of Undertaking not to alienate hypothecated goods, Letters of Undertaking and Deed of Guarantee, all

¶24

3 OA NO. 259/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. M/S D R SELECTIONS AND ANOTHER

¶25

dated 18.03.2024, which are Annexure A15 to A22 to this OA; General Term Loan Agreement, Term Loan Agreement, Interest Agreement, Letters of Continuity, DP Notes, AD-02A, Composite Hypothecation Deed, Letter of Undertaking not to alienate hypothecated goods, Letters of Undertaking and Deed of Guarantee, all dated 08.11.2024, which are Annexure A24 to A31 and A33 to A37 to this OA; Notices dated 01.08.2025 and 06.10.2025, which are Annexure A38 and A39 to this OA and Statement of Account, which are Annexure A40 and A41 to this OA.

¶26

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan accounts there was a debit of Rs. 38,24,294.80, 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.

¶27

The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of the defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 16.06.2026.

¶28

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Gaurav Mishra, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India has been filed.

¶29

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶30

It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case.

¶31

From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A41 to this OA, it is proved that defendant no. 1 through its Proprietor defendant no. 2 approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendants were classified as

¶32

4 OA NO. 259/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. M/S D R SELECTIONS AND ANOTHER

¶33

NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 38,24,294.80 (Rupees Thirty Eight Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Four and Paise Eighty 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.

¶34

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @10.95%p.a. plus @2% penal interest p.a. with monthly rests from 01.12.2025 till the realization.

¶35

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 assets, undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loans 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 @8.00% p.a. in both the loan accounts from the date of filing of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶36

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.38,24,294.80 (Rupees Thirty Eight Lacs Twenty Four Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Four and Paise Eighty Only) jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00% p.a. in both the loan accounts 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 assets of defendants 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

¶37

5 OA NO. 259/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. M/S D R SELECTIONS AND ANOTHER

¶38

sale	of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to
enfor 12.	ce the claim through due process of law. Any other application pending stands disposed of.
13.	Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.
14.	Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this
Tribu	nal on 06.07.2026.
15.	Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to
defen	dants through registered/speed post and this order be also
uploa consi Pron Date	ded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be gned. ounced by me in the open Tribunal. d: 20.06.2026
	(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer,
	DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. M/S D R Selections and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S D R Selections and Another

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S P.M. Enterprises and Others

The Federal Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Vajir Singh Alias Sh. Wazir Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Sandip Kumar

State Bank of India versus Sh. Amandeep Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Boota Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Nirmal Singh