Allowed

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. M/S Babu Ram Parshotam Lal

DRT20 May 2026OA/595/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal enforced an application filed by Union Bank of India against two defendants for recovery of ₹26,97,612.64 plus interest arising from a term loan and credit card limit. The credit for the joint and several liability was issued along with directions for the sale of security assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹26,97,612.64 with interest from respondents jointly and severally by sale of mortgaged and personal properties.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 595/2023 Date of Institution: 09.03.2023 Date of Decision: 20.05.2026

¶4

Union Bank of India (erstwhile Corporation Bank) having its branches all over India and a branch at S.C.F. 46-47, Leak Wala Talab, Jalandhar Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Babu Ram Parshotam Lal through its proprietor Sh. Parshotam Lal s/o Sh. Babu Ram, situated at Near Dushehra Ground, G.T. Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶8

Parshotam Lal s/o Sh. Babu Ram, r/o Near Dushehra Ground, G.T. Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Sh. Ajay Singla, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 28.05.2024 .

¶12

OA for the Recovery of ₹26,97,612.64p with interest from 09.03.2023.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Union Bank of India has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹26,97,612.64p with interest against M/s Babu Ram Parshotam Lal and another (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 19.06.2013, it had granted a loan of ₹19.50 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor defendant No.2 in the form of C.C Limit under C.V.P.O.D. Scheme for Business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.2 had mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Again on 19.08.2020, at the request of the defendants, bank granted Term Loan of ₹3.89 Lacs under U.G.E.C.L. Scheme to defendant No.1 through its proprietor defendant No.2 for

¶16

¶17

Business purpose. Again on 30.12.2020, at the request of the defendants, bank granted a loan of ₹1.30 Lacs in the form of Term Loan under F.I.T.L. Scheme to defendant No.1 through its proprietor. defendant No.2 for Business purpose. To secure both the above-mentioned facilities, Defendant No.2 extended the charge over the property. All the loan facilities were chargeable at different rates of interest. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 18.04.2016, 28.12.2018 and 01.01.2021. On 31.01.2023, a sum of ₹26,97,612.64p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶18

On 24.04.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 28.05.2024, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶19

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Maina Moji, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-40. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loans under various schemes and on 31.01.2023, a sum of ₹26,97,612.64p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹26,97,612.64p (Rupees Twenty Six Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Six Hundred Twelve and Paise Sixty Four Only) i.e. ₹20,89,818/- in CVPOD (C.C. Limit) with interest @11.05% p.a.; ₹4,51,114/- in UGECL (Term Loan) with interest @7.5% p.a.; ₹1,56,680.64p in FITL (Term Loan) with interest @11.05% p.a. (all facilities) with monthly rests from 09.03.2023, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The

¶20

¶21

liability of both the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 24.06.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property and hypothecated assets as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 20.05.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶22

MANOJ KALRA

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. M/S Babu Ram Parshotam Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. M/S Babu Ram Parshotam Lal

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

M/S Mahavir Food Products versus Uco Bank

Gautam Kotwal versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

M S Home First Finance Company India Ltd. versus Dmi Housing Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Gagandeep Singh

Akash Musaddi Proprietor of Mittal Trading Co. versus Icici Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Sh. Kaloo Ram @ Om Parkash