Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Ravinder Singh

DRT24 Jun 2026OA/281/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of dues amounting to Rs. 26,04,986.90 under the RDB Act against a defendant who failed to repay a term loan for a combine harvester, disallowing the claimed 9% interest and ordering 7% simple interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 26,04,986.90 with simple interest at 7% p.a. from filing date until realization; Recovery Certificate issued for execution of sale of hypothecated asset.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Ravinder Singh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.281/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 12.02.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 24.06.2026

¶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 Offices at SCF-35, New Grain Market, Muktsar, Punjab through its Branch Manager, Sh. Harjinder Singh.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Ravinder Singh S/o Sh. Balkar Singh, R/o Attari, PO Badhai, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab.

¶10

……..Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Ankit Kaushal, Advocate proxy for Sh. Karan Singla, Advocate for the applicant

¶13

None for Defendant (Already ex-parte vide order dated 20.06.2026).

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.26,04,986.90 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Four Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Six and Paise Ninety Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Harjinder Singh, Branch Manager of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Board Resolution dated 15.12.2022, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶16

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan facility for purchase of Combine Harvester of Rs.24,90,000.00 vide Application Form for Agricultural Credit dated 04.10.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶17

2 OA NO.281/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS SH. RAVINDER SINGH

¶18

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan facility for purchase of Combine Harvester of Rs.24,90,000.00 vide Letter of Sanction dated 21.10.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant.

¶19

Defendant hypothecated his Moveable Asset i.e., Combine Harvester, Model JMB076 bearing Registration No. PB30AB5296, Chassis no. JMSSPJMB076J240162, Engine no. RLHM111070 vide Registration Certificate and Quotation dated 04.10.2024, which are Annexures A12 & A13 to this OA.

¶20

Documents executed : Term Loan Agreement (Hypothecation of Movables), Hypothecation Agreement (For Agricultural Advances), Hypothecation (Vehicles) Agreement, Demand Promissory Note, Interest Agreement (for MCLR loans), Letter of Continuity, Letter of General Lien and Set Off (AD-02A), Letter of Undertaking from the Borrower, all dated 21.10.2024, which are Annexures A4 to A11 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 20.11.2025, along postal receipt, which is Annexure A14 to this OA; Statement of account along with certificate, which is Annexure A15 to this OA.

¶21

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account, there was a debit of Rs.26,04,986.90, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendant was served summons to appear before this Tribunal, but no one appeared on behalf of the defendant and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.06.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Harjinder Singh, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy counsel for applicant that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶22

3 OA NO.281/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS SH. RAVINDER SINGH

¶23

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A15 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facility, which was granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendant failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, loan account was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.26,04,986.90 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Four Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Six and Paise Ninety Only), along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶24

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @9.00%p.a. (inclusive of penal interest @2%) with quarterly rests till the realization.

¶25

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 defendant, 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 @07.00%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.

¶26

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.26,04,986.90 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Four Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Six and Paise Ninety Only), with costs, current and future simple interest @07.00%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 Combine Harvester of the defendant in execution

¶27

¶28

OA NO.281/2026

¶29

UNION BANK OF INDIA VS SH. RAVINDER SINGH

¶30

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 defendant. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶31

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 09.07.2026. 15. Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendant 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: 24.06.2026

¶32

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Ravinder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Ravinder 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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Messrs Malik Transport Company and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Gurmail Singh and Another

Icici Bank Limited versus Messrs Thind Builders and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Gurmeet Singh

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Bagecha Singh and Another

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Arun International and Others