Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Hardeep Singh

DRT23 Jul 2026OA/634/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993, the Tribunal allowed the Union Bank of India's claim for recovery of an agricultural term loan. The court declared the defendant liable to pay the outstanding dues with simple interest at 8% per annum and ordered the issue of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defined amount repayable with 8% interest; Recovery Certificate issued; liberty to enforce via sale or attachment.

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Hardeep Singh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.634/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 29.04.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 23.07.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India, a body corporate and banking company constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings), Act, 1970, having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 and amongst other places at Nabha Main Branch, Near Kulwant Furniture, Patiala Road, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala through Sh. Sujeet Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Ratan Prasad, Senior Manager, Principal Officer and Constituted Attorney of applicant bank.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Hardeep Singh S/o Sh. Prem Singh, R/o VPO Majhi, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur, Punjab - 148026.

¶10

…….. Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Pankaj Beri, Advocate for the applicant (through VC) None for Defendant (Already ex-parte vide order dated 21.07.2026).

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.21,78,307.15 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Three Hundred Seven and Paise Fifteen Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Sujeet Kumar, Senior Manager of the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 17.08.2022, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶15

The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan facility for purchase of Combine

¶16

2 OA NO.634/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS SH. HARDEEP SINGH

¶17

Harvester of Rs.23,40,000.00 vide Application Form for Agricultural Credit dated 21.08.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan facility for purchase of Combine Harvester of Rs.23,40,000.00 vide Letter of Sanction dated 07.09.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendant. 4. Defendant hypothecated his Moveable Asset i.e., Combine Harvester Model HR 985, bearing Chassis No. HAI985I240057, Engine No. PXLM490101, Registration No. PB13BV9065 vide Tax Invoice dated 26.09.2024 and Quotation dated 06.08.2024, which are Annexures A13 & A14 to this OA and Provisional Registration Certificate filed vide dairy no. 13631 on 23.07.2026.

¶18

Documents executed : Demand Promissory Note, Letter of Continuity, Term Loan Agreement (Hypothecation of Movables), Hypothecation (Vehicles) Agreement, Hypothecation Agreement (For Agricultural Advances), Interest Agreement, Declaration / Undertaking, Letter of Undertaking from the Borrower, Simple Loan Agreement (For Agricultural Advances), all dated 07.09.2024, which are Annexures A4 to A12 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 22.10.2025, along with its translation and postal receipt, which is Annexure A15 to this OA; Statement of account along with certificate, which is Annexure A16 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.21,78,307.15, which is recoverable and the defendant was served recall notices but he did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendant was served summons to appear before this Tribunal, but no one appeared on behalf of the defendant and he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.07.2026.

¶20

3 OA NO.634/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS SH. HARDEEP SINGH

¶21

In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Sujeet Kumar, Senior Manager, Union Bank of India has been filed.

¶22

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶23

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.

¶24

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A16 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the loan facility, which was granted to him and for that he had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendant 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.21,78,307.15 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Three Hundred Seven and Paise Fifteen Only), along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶25

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @9.00%p.a. with half yearly rests with penal interest @2%p.a. from 18.03.2026 till the realization.

¶26

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 asset, undertaking of the defendant, 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.

¶27

4 OA NO.634/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS SH. HARDEEP SINGH

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.21,78,307.15 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Seventy Eight Thousand Three Hundred Seven and Paise Fifteen Only), 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 Combine Harvester of the defendant 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 defendant. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law.

¶29

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 07.08.2026.

¶32

Copy of this order be given dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendant 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: 23.07.2026

¶35

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

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Hardeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Hardeep Singh

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sh. Amarjit Singh and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Amrinder Singh and Others

State Bank of India versus M/S Sandeep Dairy Farm and Another

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Bansal Industries and Others

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Jasvir Singh

Union Bank of India versus Sh. Jagpal Singh