Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M/S Sbj Enterprises and Another

DRT25 Aug 2026OA/574/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This hearing dismissed the original application filed under the RDB Act by a bank against defaulting borrowers. The court, noting ex-parte proceedings, allowed the application for recovery of a term loan, granting 8% p.a. interest instead of the claimed 11.50% p.a., and directed issuance of a recovery certificate and appointment of a Recovery Officer.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.21,63,928.54 with costs and simple interest @ 8% p.a. from filing of OA till realization; Recovery Certificate issued.

Union Bank of India versus M/S Sbj Enterprises and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 574/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 10.04.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 25.08.2026

¶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 SBJ Enterprises, R/o K 155, Phase 8, Focal Point Ludhiana, Punjab-141010.

¶10

Smt. Kamalpreet Kaur W/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, R/o House No. 1- 2, Street No. 1, ICICI ATM, Harjap Nagar Mundian, Ludhiana, Punjab-141015.

¶11

…….Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Karan Singla, Advocate for Applicant (through VC)

¶14

None for Defendants (already ex-parte vide order dated 18.08.2026)

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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.21,63,928.54 (Rupees Twenty One Lac Sixty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Eight and Paise Fifty Four Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Deepak Singh, Branch Manager of 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.

¶17

The brief facts of the OA are that the Defendant no.1, through its proprietor defendant no.2, approached the applicant for sanction of

¶18

2 OA/574/2026

¶19

UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. M/S SBJ ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER

¶20

Term Loan of Rs.24.90 lacs vide Loan Application dated 14.02.2025, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶21

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.24.90 lacs vide Sanctioned Letter dated 14.02.2025, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no.1, through its proprietor defendant no.2, hypothecated its plant and machinery purchased out of bank finance vide Term Loan Agreements (Hypothecation of Movables) dated 10.10.2024, which is Annexure A4 to this OA;

¶22

Documents executed: Demand Promissory Note dated 10.10.2024, which is Annexure A5 to this OA; Letter of Undertaking from the Borrower dated 10.10.2024, which is Annexure A6 to this OA; General Term Loan Agreement dated 10.10.2024, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Letter of Continuity dated 10.10.2024, which is Annexure A8 to this OA; Request Letter dated 10.10.2024, which is Annexure A9 to this OA; Interest Agreement dated 10.10.2024, which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Agreement to be stamped as simple agreement dated 10.10.2024, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; Notice dated 30.01.2026, which is Annexure A12 to this OA; Account Statement with Banker 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 the loan account, there was a debit of Rs.21,63,928.54 (Rupees Twenty One Lac Sixty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Eight and Paise Fifty Four Only), 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 arguments and perused record.

¶23

3 OA/574/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. M/S SBJ ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER

¶24

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

¶25

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A13 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no.1, through its proprietor defendant no.2, approached the applicant for availing of the loan facility, which was granted to them. 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.21,63,928.54 (Rupees Twenty One Lac Sixty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Eight and Paise Fifty Four 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.

¶26

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. inclusive of 2.00% p.a. penal interest with quarterly rests from 29.01.2026 till the realization.

¶27

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 @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.

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.21,63,928.54 (Rupees Twenty One Lac Sixty Three Thousand Nine

¶29

¶30

OA/574/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. M/S SBJ ENTERPRISES AND ANOTHER

¶31

Hundred Twenty Eight and Paise Fifty Four Only), jointly and severally, 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 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.

¶32

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶33

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶34

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 09.09.2026

¶35

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: 25.08.2026.

¶36

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶37

Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. M/S Sbj Enterprises and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M/S Sbj Enterprises 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

Union Bank of India versus M/S Beat Zone 99 and Another

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Charanjeet Singh and Others

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Sh. Gurmit Singh and Another

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Sh. Gurlal Singh and Another

Bank of India versus Sh. Hakam Singh through His Legal Heirs and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Ajmer Singh