Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Sandeep Singh

DRT3 Jul 2026OA/752/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an ex-parte original application filed by Union Bank of India for recovery of an outstanding term loan of Rs. 20,36,935.41 plus interest due from the defendant for failure to repay agricultural credit facilities.

What did the court decide?

Declaration of liability to pay Rs. 20,36,935.41 with interest @7% p.a.; issuance of Recovery Certificate; liberty to enforce claim through execution proceedings.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.752/2026

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 20.05.2026

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 03.07.2026

¶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 a Branch Offices at Nabha, District Patiala, Punjab through its Branch Manager, Sh. Sunil Jaiswal.

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Sandeep Singh S/o Sh. Jaspal Singh, R/o Village Kahangarh, Bhutna, Post Gajewas, District Patiala.

¶10

……..Defendant

¶11

Advocates:

¶12

Argued by Sh. Ravi Mishra, Advocate proxy for Sh. Karan Singla, Advocate for the applicant (through VC) None for Defendant (Already ex-parte vide order dated 01.07.2026).

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant bank under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993, against the defendant for recovery of Rs.20,36,935.41 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Five and Paise Forty One Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Sunil Jaiswal, Branch Manager of the applicant bank, who is competent to institute the Original Application vide Authorization Letter dated 08.09.2025, 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 Harvester of Rs.24,30,000.00 vide Application Form for Agricultural Credit dated 04.01.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA.

¶16

2 OA NO.752/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS SH. SANDEEP SINGH

¶17

The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan facility for purchase of Combine Harvester of Rs.24,30,000.00 vide Letter of Sanction dated 09.01.2024, 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 KARMA 930 bearing Registration no. PB11DF3937, Chassis no. KMW930A240321, Engine no. PGHM115121 vide Quotation dated 15.12.2023 and Registration Certificate, which are Annexures A12 & A13 to this OA.

¶18

Documents executed : Hypothecation (Vehicles) Agreement, Hypothecation Agreement (for Agricultural Advances), Demand Promissory Note, Interest Agreement, Letter of Undertaking not to alienate Hypothecated Goods (AD-12), Letter of Continuity (AD-09), AD-02A, General Term Loan Agreement, all dated 09.01.2024, which are Annexures A4 to A11 to this OA; Legal Notice dated 07.05.2026 along with postal receipt, which is Annexure A14 to this OA; Statement of account along with certificate, which is Annexure A15 to this OA.

¶19

The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account, there was a debit of Rs.20,36,935.41, 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 01.07.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Sunil Jaiswal , Branch Manager, Union Bank of India has been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy counsel for applicant through video conferencing that in view of the documentary evidence brought

¶20

3 OA NO.752/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS SH. SANDEEP SINGH

¶21

on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case.

¶22

From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A15 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.20,36,935.41 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Five and Paise Forty One Only), along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶23

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. (inclusive of penal interest @2%) with quarterly rests till the realization.

¶24

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 @07.00%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.

¶25

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.20,36,935.41 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Five and Paise Forty One Only), with costs, current and future simple interest @07.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date

¶26

¶27

OA NO.752/2026 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS SH. SANDEEP SINGH

¶28

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. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 18.07.2026. 15. 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. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 03.07.2026 (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Sandeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Sandeep 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

State Bank of India versus Messrs Bajaj Trading Co. and Others

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Gurcharan Singh through His Legal Heirs and Another

Axis Bank Ltd. versus M/S Sardari Cuisine and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Pargat Singh

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/s Shabri Hand Embroidery and Another

Yes Bank Ltd. versus Smt. Manpreet Kaur and Others