Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Gursewak Singh

DRT21 Apr 2026OA/357/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte Original Application filed under Section 19 of the RDB Act, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Union Bank of India to recover Rs. 25,31,897.90 from the defendant. The Tribunal granted simple interest at 7% p.a. from the date of filing and ordered the issue of a Recovery Certificate for enforcement under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 25,31,897.90 with costs and simple interest at 7% p.a. from the date of filing until realization.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Gursewak Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.357/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 24.03.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 21.04.2026

¶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 Office at Nabha, District Patiala, Punjab through its Branch Manager, Sh. Sunil Jaiswal

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Gursewak Singh, S/o Sh. Kulwant Singh, R/o Harnama Colony, Tehsil Malerkotla, Punjab

¶10

…….Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Karan Singla, Advocate for applicant (through VC) None for defendant (already ex-parte vide order dated 09.03.2026)

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 25,31,897.90 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Seven and Paise Ninety Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Sunil Jaiswal, Branch Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 13.03.2024, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶15

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs. 23.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 06.12.2023 which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶16

2 OA/357/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. GURSEWAK SINGH

¶17

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs. 23.00 Lacs vide Sanctioned Letter dated 08.12.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant hypothecated his movable property namely Harvestor Sokhal 996 bearing Registration no.PB29AG4141, Engine no.CDPZ114712 and Chassis no.SAW996A2024054 vide RC, which is Annexure A12 to this OA.

¶18

Documents executed: Hypothecation Agreements, DP Note, Interest Agreement, Letter of Undertaking not to alienate Hypothecated Goods, Letter of Continuity, To be stamped as Simple Agreement, all dated 08.12.2023, which are Annexure A4 to A10 to this OA; Quotation dated 01.12.2023, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; Notice dated 01.02.2025, which is Annexure A13 to this OA; Account Statement with certificate, which is Annexure A14 to this OA.

¶19

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.25,31,897.90 which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notice but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶20

The defendant was served summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and that he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09.03.2026.

¶21

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Sunil Jaiswal, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned counsel (through VC) that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶22

From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A14 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

¶23

¶24

OA/357/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. GURSEWAK SINGH

¶25

favour of the bank. The defendant failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendant was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 25,31,897.90 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Seven and Paise Ninety Only) along with interest from the defendant from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶26

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @9% p.a. (inclusive of @2% penal interest) with quarterly rests from 06.02.2025 till the realization.

¶27

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 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 @7.00%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.

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.25,31,897.90 (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Thirty One Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Seven and Paise Ninety Only) with costs, current and future simple interest @7.00%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 assets of the defendant in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the

¶29

¶30

OA/357/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. GURSEWAK SINGH

¶31

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.

¶32

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 12.05.2026.

¶35

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.

¶36

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal.

¶37

Dated: 21.04.2026

¶38

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

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Gursewak Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Gursewak 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

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Raj Transport Company and Another

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Sahib Knitwear and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Smt. Ravinder Kaur and Others

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S Lajpat Rai Devinder Kumar and Others

Capital Small Finance Bank Limited versus Sh. Harpreet Singh through His Legal Heirs and Others

Canara Bank versus Sh Baldev Singh and Others