Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Joga Singh @ Sh. Yoga Singh and Another

DRT12 Aug 2026OA/507/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed a recovery application filed by Union Bank of India against two defendants for Rs. 20.79 lakhs. The court ruled the defendants liable to repay the principal plus future simple interest at 8% p.a. and ordered the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay Rs. 20,79,960.46 plus simple interest at 8% p.a. from filing of OA till realization. Issuance of Recovery Certificate ordered.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Joga Singh @ Sh. Yoga Singh and… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.507/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 15.04.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 12.08.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India (erstwhile Corporation Bank), a Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Central Office at 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 and one of its Branch Offices at SCF 35, New Grain Market, Muktsar, Punjab through its Branch Manager, Sh. Jeetendra Kumar

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Joga Singh @Sh. Yoga Singh, S/o Sh. Lakha Singh, R/o House no. 241, Village Rorhan Wala, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab

¶10

Sh. Dharminder Singh, S/o Sh. Balkar Singh, R/o Village Rorhan Wala, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab

¶11

….……Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Karan Singla, Advocate for applicant (through VC) None for defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 10.08.2026)

¶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 defendants for recovery of Rs. 20,79,960.46 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty and Paise Forty Six Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Jeetendra Kumar, Branch Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 26.04.2023, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶16

The brief facts of the OA are that defendant no. 1 approached the applicant for grant of KCC Limit of Rs. 15.00 Lacs vide Loan Application dated 04.02.2015, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶17

2 OA/507/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. JOGA SINGH @YOGA SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶18

Thereafter, defendant no. 1 applied for renewal of KCC Limit of Rs. 15.00 Lacs vide Renewal dated 17.03.2021, which is Annexure A8 to this OA.

¶19

The applicant sanctioned KCC Limit of Rs. 15.00 Lacs vide Sanctioned Letter, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Thereafter, the applicant sanctioned renewal of KCC Limit of Rs. 15.00 Lacs. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor. 4. Defendant no. 1 mortgaged his immovable property i.e. Land measuring 32K 00M situated at Village Roranwala, Hadbast no. 122, Tehsil and District Muktsar, Punjab vide Declaration u/s 4 (1) of the Punjab Agricultural Credit Operations and Provisions (Banks) Act, 1978 dated 20.02.2015, Mortgaged Deed dated 24.02.2015 and Jamabandi for the year 2011-2012, which are Annexure A6, A11 and A12 to this OA. Documents executed: Hypothecation Deed, Letter of Undertaking and Deed of Guarantee, all dated 24.02.2015, which are Annexure A4, A5 and A7 to this OA; Letters of Continuity dated 17.03.2021, which are Annexure A9 and A10 to this OA; Notice dated 04.10.2024, which is Annexure A13 to this OA and Account Statement with certificate, which is Annexure A14 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. 20,79,960.46 which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notice but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served summons to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10.08.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Jeetendra Kumar, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶20

3 OA/507/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. JOGA SINGH @YOGA SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶21

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 Annexures A1 to A14 to this OA, it is proved that defendant no. 1 approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to him. Defendant no. 2 stood as guarantor. Defendants had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 20,79,960.46 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty and Paise Forty Six Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶23

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.50%p.a. with quarterly rests from 01.01.2025 till the realization.

¶24

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 defendants, 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.

¶25

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.20,79,960.46 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Seventy Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty and Paise Forty Six Only) jointly and severally with

¶26

¶27

OA/507/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. JOGA SINGH @YOGA SINGH AND ANOTHER

¶28

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 mortgaged property of defendant no. 1 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 defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶29

Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 28.08.2026.

¶32

Copy of this order be given Dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned.

¶33

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal .

¶34

Dated: 12.08.2026

¶35

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶36

Presiding Officer,

¶37

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Joga Singh @ Sh. Yoga Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Joga Singh @ Sh. Yoga Singh and Another

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. Jasveer Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Vikram Singh

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Late Sh. Gurpreet Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus Sh. Nirmal Singh

Capital Small Finance Bank Limited versus Sh. Harmeet Singh and Others

Canara Bank versus Smt. Narinderjit Kaur and Another