Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Dewan Singh

DRT23 Feb 2026OA/362/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicants request to recover Rs. 23,79,881.77 principal with simple interest at 8% p.a. from the defendant, directing sale of hypothecated asset if dues remain unsatisfied.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of liability to pay Rs. 23,79,881.77 plus simple interest @08% p.a. from filing date. Order to issue Recovery Certificate and allow sale of hypothecated or personal assets.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Dewan Singh — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.362/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 18.03.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 23.02.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India, a body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfers of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at Union Bank at 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai having its Regional Office at UT Chandigarh and its Branch at Nabha Main Branch, Balraj Complex, Near Bora Gate, Patiala Road, Nabha, District Patiala (Punjab) through its Chief Manager Sh. Saurabh Kumar Kannaujia who is constituted Power of Attorney and Principal Officer.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Dewan Singh S/o of Sh. Amrik Singh, R/o Village Rajgarh, Tehsil Nabha, District. Patiala (Punjab)-147201.

¶10

….……Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Banni Thomas, Advocate for the applicant Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 12.01.2026

¶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. 23,79,881.77 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty One and Paise Seventy Seven Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Saurabh Kumar Kannaujia, Chief Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application Power of Attorney dated 25.10.2014, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶15

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant approached the applicant for grant Term Loan of Rs. 21.60 Lacs for purchase of new Combine Harvester vide Loan Application dated 16.08.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶16

2 OA/362/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. DEWAN SINGH

¶17

The applicant sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.21.60 Lacs for purchase of Combine Harvester vide letter of Sanction dated 17.08.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA;

¶18

Defendant hypothecated Combine Harvester Make: Shaktiman Agro Industries, Model: AS-930, bearing Registration No. PB11DE5208, Engine No. CHEM005698, Chassis No. SAI930H002402 vide Hypothecation Agreement (for Agricultural Advances), Hypothecation (Vehicles) Agreement, both dated 19.08.2023, which are Annexure A4 and A5 to this OA; Quotation dated 07.08.2023, Tax Invoice dated 25.08.2023, Form No.21 & 22, Sale Certificate and Registration Certificate of Combine Harvester, are Annexure A15(Colly) to this OA. Documents executed : Letter of General Lien and Set Off, Letter of Undertaking from the Borrower, Interest Agreement, Declaration/ Undertaking for Agricultural Advances, Letter of Continuity, Simple Loan Agreement, Term Loan Agreement (Hypothecation of movables), Demand Promissory Notes, all dated 17.08.2023, which are Annexures A4 to A13 to this OA; Format of Letter to obtained from Borrower, which is Annexure A14 to this OA; Recall Notice/Letter dated 03.06.2024, 31.08.2024, Legal Notice dated 23.10.2024 along with its translation and postal receipts, Legal Notice dated 04.02.2025, along with its translation and postal receipts, which is Annexure A16 to this OA; Notice dated 17.02.2025 u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, which is Annexure A17 to this OA; Statement of Account with certificate, which is Annexure A18 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. 23,79,881.77 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.

¶20

3 OA/362/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. DEWAN SINGH

¶21

The defendant was served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte vide order dated 12.01.2026.

¶22

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Kumar Kannaujia, Chief Manager , Union Bank of India, h as been filed.

¶23

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record

¶24

It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A18 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, 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. 23,79,881.77 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty One and Paise Seventy Seven Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶25

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed [email protected]%p.a. with monthly rests from 04.03.2025 till the realization.

¶26

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/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 uniform simple interest

¶27

4 OA/362/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. DEWAN SINGH

¶28

@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.

¶29

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum Rs.23,79,881.77 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty One and Paise Seventy Seven Only), 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 hypothecated vehicle of the defendant 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 defendant. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶30

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 09.03.2026. 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.

¶31

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 23.02.2026.

¶32

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

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Dewan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Dewan 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

State Bank of India versus Sh. Rafiq Ahmad and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Kulwant Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Raghbir Singh and Another

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Late Sh. Jassa Singh through His Legal Heirs

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Amarjit Singh and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Kesar Singh and Others