Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Smt. Shipra and Another

DRT30 Jan 2026OA/575/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of a housing loan default of Rs.34,61,888.37. The court directed the defendants to pay the principal amount plus interest at 8% p.a. with costs, and authorized recovery through sale of mortgaged property or attachment of personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Defendants liable to pay Rs.34,61,888.37 plus costs and 8% p.a. simple interest from filing date; Liberty to execute attachment/sale.

Union Bank of India versus Smt. Shipra and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.575/2022

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 13.01.2022

¶5

DATE OF DECISION:30.01.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India (erstwhile Andhra Bank), a government of India undertaking incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and having its Head Office at Union Bank Bhawan, 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Backbay Reclamation Nariman Point, Mumbai carrying on its business of banking at various places throughout India including a branch at Landran, SAS Nagar, Mohali Punjab Sh. Munish Sharda, Branch Manager/Principal Officer/ General Attorney, Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Landran, SAS Nagar.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Smt. Shipra W/o Sh. Manjit Singh, R/o 3555, Sectro-38-D, Chandigarh.

¶10

Sh. Nitesh Kumar Son of Sh. Hari Kumar, R/o House No. 1771/11, Opposite Bank of Baroda, Ward No. 13, Mahavir Nagar, Ambala City.

¶11

….……Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Gaurav Chadda, Advocate for the applicant

¶14

Defendants already ex-parte vide order dated 31.10.2025.

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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.34,61,888.37 (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Sixty One Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Eight & Paise Thirty Seven Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Munish

¶17

¶18

OA NO.575/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. SHIPRA AND ANOTHER

¶19

Sharda, Branch Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application Power of Attorney dated 22.02.2017, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶20

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendants approached the applicant for grant of Housing loan of Rs.35.00 Lacs vide Loan application dated 15.05.2018, which is Annexure A3 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Housing loan of Rs.35.00 Lacs vide Sanction letter dated 18.05.2018, which is Annexure A4 to this OA to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. 4. Defendant no.1 had mortgaged her immovable property i.e. land Residential House Plot No. 1173, measuring 126.66 sq. yards, situated at GBP Crest-1, Village Bhago Majra, Hadbast no. 75, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab vide through equitable mortgage of sale deed no. 2018-19/15/1921 dated 18.05.2018, along with its translation, which is Annexure A13 to this OA. Documents executed: Amalgamation Notification dated 04.03.2020, which is Annexure A1 to this OA; Composite agreement, supplement to composite agreement, Demand Promissory note, CIBIL letter, Letter of consent, Letter of undertaking, letter of declaration, all dated 18.05.2018, which are Annexures A5 to A11 to this OA; SARFAESI Notice dated 01.09.2021, which is Annexure A14 to this OA and Statement of account along with certificate, which are Annexure A15 & A16 to this OA; Vouchers dated 30.01.2019, 30.4.2019 and 30.08.2019, which are Annexures A17 to A19 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.34,61,888.37, 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.

¶21

¶22

OA NO.575/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. SHIPRA AND ANOTHER

¶23

The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 31.10.2025.

¶24

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Munish Sharda, Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, has been filed.

¶25

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶26

It was argued by learned counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant bank had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A19 to this OA, it is proved that the defendants approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which were 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, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant bank is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.34,61,888.37 (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Sixty One Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Eight & Paise Thirty Seven Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the accounts. 10. In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @9.50%p.a. with monthly rests from 01.01.2022 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 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

¶28

¶29

OA NO.575/2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. SHIPRA AND ANOTHER

¶30

Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform 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.

¶31

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.34,61,888.37 (Rupees Thirty Four Lacs Sixty One Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Eight & Paise Thirty Seven 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 mortgaged property of defendants 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 12.02.2026. 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: 30.01.2026.

¶35

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. Smt. Shipra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Smt. Shipra 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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Dharminder Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus M/S K. P. S. Beverages and Others

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Value Max Clothing and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Kewal Singh and Another

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Deepa Paints and Sons and Another

State Bank of India versus Messrs Vallabh Fashions and Another