Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Ranjit Singh

DRT3 Aug 2026OA/495/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 22,67,043.42 from the defendant. The court granted interest at 8% p.a. and issued a recovery certificate, enabling enforcement through hypothecated assets under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Defendant ordered to pay Rs. 22,67,043.42 with costs and simple interest @08.00% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 495/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 27.03.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 03.08.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India, a Body Corporate and Banking Company constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquistion and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 and amongst other Places, Branch at Gill, Tehsil Bhaga Purana and District Moga, Punjab through Sh. Ram Lal, Branch Manager, Principal Officer and Authorized Signatory

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Ranjit Singh, S/o Sh. Tarlok Singh, R/o Near Dharamshala, Village Saho Ke, Tehsil Baghapurana, District Moga, Punjab

¶10

….……Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Sharik Minhas, Advocate proxy for Sh. Pankaj Beri, Advocate for applicant

¶13

None for defendant (already ex-parte vide order dated 28.07.2026)

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

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. 22,67,043.42 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand Forty Three and Paise Forty Two Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Ram Lal, Branch Manager o f the applicant who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 02.12.2025, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶16

2 OA/495/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. RANJIT SINGH

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for the grant of Term Loan of Rs. 24.60 Lacs vide Loan Application Form dated 14.02.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned Term Loan of Rs. 24.60 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 19.02.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant hypothecated his movable asset namely Harvester Gautam 949 bearing Registration no. PB29AG2339, Engine no. HP13707 and Chassis no. GAI949C2406 vide RC filed on 29.07.2026. Documents executed: DP Note, Letter of Continuity, Term Loan Agreement, Hypothecation Agreements, Interest Agreement, Declaration/Undertaking and Letter of Undertaking, all dated 19.02.2024, which are Annexure A4 to A11 to this OA; Quotation dated 14.02.2024, which is Annexure A12 to this OA; Invoice dated 22.03.2024, which is Annexure A13 to this OA; Notice dated 25.02.2026, which is Annexure A14 to this OA and Statement of Account, which is Annexure A15 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. 22,67,043.42 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. 6. 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 28.07.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Ram Lal, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶18

3 OA/495/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. RANJIT SINGH

¶19

It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶20

From the perusal of all the Annexure 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, 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. 22,67,043.42 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand Forty Three and Paise Forty Two Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶21

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. excluding @2% p.a. penal interest with half yearly rests from 17.03.2026 till realization.

¶22

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 @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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.22,67,043.42 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand

¶23

4 OA/495/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. RANJIT SINGH

¶24

Forty Three and Paise Forty Two 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 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. 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 18.08.2026. 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: 03.08.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Ranjit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Ranjit 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 Sh. Mahesh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Knight Detective Security Service Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Vinod Cement and Building Material Store and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Sohan Singh and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Ashok Kumar and Sons and Another

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S Jap Trading Co. and Another