Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Sandeep Singh

DRT13 Jul 2026OA/486/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Union Bank of India's application for recovery of Rs. 20.47 lakhs from Sandeep Singh regarding a defaulted term loan. The court granted a recovery certificate and adjusted the interest rate to 8% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 20,47,572.38 with simple interest @ 8% p.a. and directive to recover from hypothecated or personal assets.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 486/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 24.03.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 13.07.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India, a Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act no. V of 1970 carrying on Banking Business having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 and its Branch Office inter alia at Union Bank of India, SCO 144A, Opposite Improvement Trust, Chotti Baradari, District Patiala, Punjab through its Branch Manager cum duly Constituted Attorney, Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Sandeep Singh, S/o Sh. Harchand Singh, R/o Village Dulba, PO Panjola, Tehsil and District Patiala, Punjab

¶10

….……Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Harinder Kumar, Advocate for applicant None for defendant (already ex-parte vide order dated 07.05.2026)

¶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. 20,47,572.38 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Two and Paise Thirty Eight Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma , Branch Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide General Power of Attorney dated 15.12.2022, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶15

2 OA NO. 486/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. SANDEEP SINGH

¶16

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs. 23.00 Lacs for purchase of combine harvester vide Loan Application dated 02.01.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned Term Loan of Rs. 23.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 02.01.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and condition were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. The defendant hypothecated his movable asset namely Virat 982 Harvester bearing Registration no. PB11DE8494, Chassis no. MHAWA240014 and Engine no. PEHM119545 vide RC filed on 09.07.2026 in compliance of order dated 14.05.2026. Documents executed: Term Loan Agreement, Letter of Undertaking, Consent Letter, Letter of Continuity, Declaration, DP Note, Letter of Confirmation and Letter of General Lien, all dated 02.01.2024, which are Annexure A4 to A11 to this OA; Recall Notice dated 10.01.2024, which is Annexure A12 to this OA and Statement of Account with certificate, which is Annexure A13 to this OA. 5. 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. 20,47,572.38, 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.

¶17

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 on 07.05.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma , Branch Manager, Union Bank of India has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. 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.

¶18

3 OA NO. 486/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. SANDEEP SINGH

¶19

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 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.20,47,572.38 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Two and Paise Thirty Eight Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶20

In so far as pendent elite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @9.00%p.a. along with @2% penal interest with monthly rests from 01.12.2025 till the realization.

¶21

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 @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.

¶22

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.20,47,572.38 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Two and Paise Thirty Eight 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.

¶23

4 OA NO. 486/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. SANDEEP SINGH

¶24

Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated asset 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. 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 28.07.2026. 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: 13.07.2026

¶25

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) 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

Central Bank of India versus Sh. Gopal Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Harjeet Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Dharamvir Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Gurdev Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Bhupinder Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Bajwa Traders and Others