Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Harbans Singh

DRT27 Mar 2026OA/989/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993, sought recovery of a term loan amount of Rs. 20.74 Lakrs from a defendant who defaulted on a vehicle loan. The Tribunal, proceeding ex-parte, granted the recovery claim with a reduced rate of simple interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 20,74,383.72 plus costs and simple interest at 8% p.a. from filing date till realization.

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

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.989/2025

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 30.07.2025

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 27.03.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India, a body corporate and Banking Company constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 and amongst other places Branch at New Grain Market, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab through Sh. Abbas Akhter, Constituted Attorney of applicant

¶7

……..Applicant Versus

¶8

Sh. Harbans Singh, S/o Sh. Swarn Singh, R/o Village Barkandi, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab ….……Defendant Advocates: Argued by Ms. Seerat Sharma, Advocate proxy for Sh. Pankaj Beri, Advocate for applicant Defendant already ex-parte vide order dated 12.01.2026 FINAL ORDER 1. 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.20,74,383.72 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Three and Paise Seventy Two Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Abbas Akhter, Constituted Attorney o f the applicant, who is competent to institute the Original Application as per Power of Attorney dated 22.10.2018, which is Annexure A1 to this OA. 2. The brief facts of the OA are that the defendant approached the applicant for grant of Term Loan of Rs. 23.00 Lacs for purchase of new Combine Harvester Karma 930 Vehicle vide Loan Application Form dated 23.01.2024, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. 3. The applicant sanctioned the Term Loan of Rs.23.00 Lacs vide Sanction Letter dated 25.01.2024, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were accepted by the defendant.

¶9

2 OA NO.989/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. HARBANS SINGH

¶10

Defendant hypothecated his purchased Harvester Combine namely Karma 930 Self Propelled Combine bearing Engine no.PRHM123825, Chassis no.KMW 930 B 240340 and Registration no. PB30AA5352 vide Registration Certificate filed on 19.03.2026 in compliance of order dated 24.02.2026. Invoice dated 22.02.2024 which is Annexure A10 to this OA. Documents executed :-DP Note, Letter of Continuity, Term Loan Agreement, Interest Agreement, Hypothecation of Agreement and Simple Loan Agreement, all dated 29.01.2024 which are Annexure A4 to A9 to this OA; Notices dated 08.02.2025 and 17.02.2025, which are Annexure A11 and A12 to this OA and Statement of Account duly certified, which is Annexure A13 to this OA. 5. The account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.20,74,383.72 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Three and Paise Seventy Two Only) plus interest 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 notice to appear before this Tribunal, but no one appeared on behalf of defendant and he was proceeded exparte on 12.01.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Abbas Akhter, Constituted Attorney, Union Bank of India h as been filed. 8. Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record. 9. It was argued by learned proxy counsel that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to Annexure A13 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant approached applicant for availing of the vehicle 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, account of the defendant was classified as NPA.

¶11

3 OA NO.989/2025 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. HARBANS SINGH

¶12

From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.20,74,383.72 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Three and Paise Seventy Two Only) along with interest from the defendant, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the amount.

¶13

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.00%p.a. with half yearly rests excluding penal interest @2% p.a. from 19.07.2025 till the realization.

¶14

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 vehicle, 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 uniform 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. 11. In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendant is liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.20,74,383.72 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Seventy Four Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Three and Paise Seventy Two 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 vehicle 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.

¶15

12. Any other application pending stands disposed of.

¶16

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶17

4 OA NO.989/2025

¶18

UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. HARBANS SINGH

¶19

Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 17.04.2026. 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.

¶20

Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 27.03.2026

¶21

(MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH)

¶22

Presiding Officer,

¶23

DRT-III, Chandigarh

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Harbans Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh. Harbans 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 Sh. Narinder Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Babu Lal and Another

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sh. Jasvir Singh since deceased through his Lrs

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Banarasi Lal and Another

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Mohinder Singh and Another

Union Bank of India versus Smt. Sukhbir Kaur and Others