Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S Shri Hari Screens and Another

DRT27 Aug 2026OA/570/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Union Bank of India for recovery of Rs.22,82,499.98 plus interest granted at 8% p.a. against borrowers who defaulted on a term loan used to purchase plant and machinery.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.22,82,499.98 with costs and simple interest @8%p.a. Recovery Certificate issued. Sale of hypothecated assets or personal assets authorized.

Union Bank of India versus M/S Shri Hari Screens and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.570/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 10.04.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 27.08.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) a Body Corporate Constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Central office at 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 and inter alia Focal Point, Ludhiana, SCF 2 & 3, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Focal Point Ludhiana Punjab through its Branch Manager Sh. Deepak Singh.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Shri Hari Screens through its proprietor Sh. Sanjay Wadhwa, Street No. 2, Near Swaran Palace, Sherpur Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab - 141123.

¶10

Sh. Sanjay Wadhwa S/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Street No. 2 Near Swaran Palace, Sherpur Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab - 141123.

¶11

…….. Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Karan Singla, Advocate for the applicant (through VC) None for defendants (Already ex-parte vide order dated 18.08.2026).

¶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 defendants for recovery of Rs.22,82,499.98 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Eighty Two Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Nine and Paise Ninety Eight Only). The Original Application has been filed throug h Sh. Deepak Singh, Branch Manager o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 19.03.2020, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶16

2 OA NO.570/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS M/S SHRI HARI SCREENS AND ANOTHER

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 a pproached the applicant for grant of Term Loan Facility for purchase of Plant and Machinery of Rs.24,90,000.00.

¶18

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan Facility for purchase of Plant and Machinery of Rs.24,90,000.00 vide Memorandum to Sanctioning Authority and Sanction Letter, both dated 18.02.2025, which are Annexures A2 & A3 to this OA and the terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2. 4. Defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 hypothecated its plant and machinery vide Term Loan Agreement (Hypothecation of Movables), which is Annexure A4 to this OA. Documents executed: Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Undertaking from the borrower, General Term Loan Agreement, Letter of Continuity, Request Letter, all dated 18.02.2025, which are Annexures A5 to A9 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 30.01.2026, along with postal receipts, which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Statement of Account along with certificate, which is Annexure A11 to this OA.

¶19

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in the loan account there was a debit of Rs.22,82,499.98, which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices 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 18.08.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Deepak Singh, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶20

3 OA NO.570/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS M/S SHRI HARI SCREENS AND ANOTHER

¶21

It was argued by learned counsel for applicant through video conferencing 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 A11 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 approached applicant for availing of loan facility which was granted to them and for that they 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, loan account was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.22,82,499.98 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Eighty Two Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Nine and Paise Ninety Eight 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.

¶22

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.25%p.a. (inclusive of 2% penal interest) till the realization.

¶23

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 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 @8.00%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.

¶24

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant sum Rs.22,82,499.98 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Eighty Two Thousand Four Hundred Ninety

¶25

4 OA NO.570/2026

¶26

UNION BANK OF INDIA VS M/S SHRI HARI SCREENS AND ANOTHER

¶27

Nine and Paise Ninety Eight Only), jointly and severally, with costs, current and future simple interest @8.00%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 plant and machinery 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.

¶28

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 11.09.2026. 15. 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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 27.08.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer,

¶29

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. M/S Shri Hari Screens and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S Shri Hari Screens 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

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Ajmer Singh

Satkar Carrier and Movers versus Axis Bank and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Partap Singh through His Legal Heirs and Others

Canara Bank versus M/s Nirmal Sagar Enterprises and others

Bank of India versus Sh. Manjot Singh and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Gs Trading Company and Others