Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Sandeep Singh

DRT29 Apr 2026OA/420/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an ex-parte application by Union Bank of India to recover Rs. 38.91 Lakhs from Sandeep Singh. The court standardized future interest at 8% p.a. and directed issuance of a recovery certificate for subsequent sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 38,91,519.33 with interest @8% p.a.; issuance of Recovery Certificate; enforcement via sale of hypothecated and personal assets.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Sandeep Singh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.420/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 13.03.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 29.04.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India, a Body Corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act no. 5 of 1970, having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai and its Branch Office at Union Bank of India, Grain Market, Bhadson, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, Punjab- 147202, through its Authorized Representative, Sh. Manpreet Singh, Senior Manager, Union Bank of India, Grain Market, Bhadson, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, Punjab- 147202.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Sandeep Singh, S/o Sh. Sucha Singh, R/o VPO Lubana Teku, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, Punjab- 147202

¶10

……….Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Rehan Chaudhary, Advocate for applicant (through VC)

¶13

None for defendant (already ex-parte vide order dated 23.04.2026)

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 38,91,519.33 (Rupees Thirty Eight Lacs Ninety One Thousand Five Hundred Nineteen and Paise Thirty Three Only). The Original Application has been filed Sh. Manpreet Singh, Senior Manager o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 24.01.2025, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶16

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of Term Loan for purchase of Combine Harvester of Rs. 20.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 28.06.2023, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Thereafter, the defendant

¶17

2 OA NO.420/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. SANDEEP SINGH

¶18

approached the applicant for the grant of Term Loan for purchase of New Combine Harvester of Rs. 24.90 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 09.09.2024, which is Annexure A7 to this OA 3. The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs. 20.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 28.06.2023, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned Term Loan for purchase of New Combine Harvester of Rs. 24.90 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 17.09.2024, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶19

Defendant hypothecated his moveable assets namely: i. Harvester Inder- 930 bearing Registration no. PB11DD6205, Engine no. JVH225692 and Chassis no. IAI930I13022 vide RC of Harvester Combine, which is Annexure A5 to this OA. ii. Harvester Jagdish 947 bearing Registration no. PB11DH5875, Engine no. RKHM111903 and Chassis no. JKAI947I240040 vide Provisional RC of Harvester Combine, which is Annexure A10 to this OA. Documents executed: Term Loan Agreement and Hypothecation Agreement, both dated 28.06.2023, which are Annexure A4 and A6 to this OA; Term Loan Agreement and Hypothecation Agreement, both dated 17.09.2024, which is Annexure A9 and A11 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 23.02.2026 along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A12 to this OA and Statements of Accounts, which is Annexure A13 to this OA.

¶20

The loan accounts became irregular and were classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan accounts there was a debit of Rs. 38,91,519.33, 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.

¶21

The defendant was served summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 23.04.2026.

¶22

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Manpreet Singh, Senior Manager, Union Bank of India h as been filed.

¶23

3 OA NO.420/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. SANDEEP SINGH

¶24

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶25

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.

¶26

From the perusal of all the Annexure A1 to A13 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facilities which were 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 loans as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, accounts of the defendant were classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.38,91,519.33 (Rupees Thirty Eight Lacs Ninety One Thousand Five Hundred Nineteen and Paise Thirty Three Only), along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts.

¶27

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. plus @2% penal interest with half yearly rest from 28.02.2026 till the realization.

¶28

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 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 uniform simple interest @08.00%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.

¶29

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.38,91,519.33 (Rupees Thirty Eight Lacs Ninety One Thousand Five Hundred Nineteen and Paise Thirty Three Only), with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in both the loan accounts

¶30

¶31

OA NO.420/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. SANDEEP SINGH

¶32

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 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.

¶33

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 20.05.2026.

¶36

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.

¶37

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶38

Dated: 29.04.2026

¶39

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶40

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Sandeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Sandeep 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

Canara Bank versus Sh. Ashwani Jindal and Others

Union Bank of India versus Ms Shree Shyam Enterprises and Another

State Bank of India versus Smt. Sarita Vohra and Others

Canara Bank versus Sh. Satbir Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Pargat Singh

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Lakhvir Singh