Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sanjana Enterprises

DRT27 Jul 2023OA/94/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an Original Application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of a loan advance of Rs. 95.53 Lakhs from the defendant, finding the plaintiff's evidence sufficient and dismissing the defendant's pleas regarding procedural defects and loan restructuring.

What did the court decide?

The defendant is directed to pay the applicant a sum of Rs. 95,52,699.62 with interest, and the applicant is entitled to proceed against hypothecated assets and defendant's properties for realization

Canara Bank versus Sanjana Enterprises — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

oA. NO. 94 0F 2022

¶5

M/s. Canara Bank Balanagar Branch JK Complex, 1't Floor Main Road, Balanagar Hyderabad-500037. ... ,Applicant. Versus

¶6

M/s. Sanjana Enterprises Rep. by its Proprietrix V. Sanjana, D/o Sridhar Aged: about 22-years Occ: Business R/o Pavani Indra Dahanush Complex Nearry 9, Road No.2, Banjara Hills Hyderabad - 500 073. Also at: H. No. 10-5-625 North Tukaram GaLe Lalaguda Secundera bad-500017. . . . Defenda nt.

¶7

Counsel for Applicant : Ms. Sangeeta Jaiswal. Counsel for Defendant : Mr. V. Sethu Madhava Rao.

¶8

:: ORDER ::

¶9

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.95,52,699.62Ps from the defendant with interest @

¶10

9.90e/o p.a. plus 2olo p.a. penal interest with monthly rests ffi(*

¶11

oa.94/2022

¶12

¶13

frcm 25.01.2022 till the date of realisation along with costs and sale of OA schedule assets.

¶14

The averments of applicant bank as per the OA, briefly, are that defendant availed credit facilities in the year 2020 to a tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for purchase of machinery. Defendant created hypothecation over the OA schedule-A property as a collateral security for the credit facility. Defendant did not maintain the loan account as pr the agreed terms. The officials of the applicant bank did not find the hypothecated assets at the defendant's unit during their inspection. The applicant issued a recall notice dated 17.09.2021 classified the account as NpA on f7.07.2022. Defendant did not liquidate the dues despite legal notice dated 27.0L.2022. Hence the present OA.

¶15

.,. The defendant filed written statement. At the outset defendant questioned the validity of OA on the ground that the Affidavit and Vakalatnama were not attested by the Advocate. As such the OA is liable to be rejected. The applicant bank failed to show the payment made by the defendant. The applicant bank obtalned signatures of the defendant on various blank/printed documents, which are now used by the applicant for the purpose of filing of the OA. Due to lack of orders during Covid.19 period, the defendant suffered losses. Applicant bank did not extend the benefit of restructuring of loan as per RBI guidelines. The averment of applicant bank,s officers did not find the existence of hypothecated assets is contrary to the averment in para 3A of the OA where in was certified that the OA claim is fully secured by the assets. Accordingly, defendant prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶16

¶17

oa.9412022

¶18

The Applicant Bank examined T. caikwad, Manager, as AW-1 and marked 11 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.11.

¶19

The defendant's right of leading evidence forfeited vide docket orders dated 22.06.2023.

¶20

Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties. perused the material placed on record.

¶21

It is contention of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank that defendant failed to clear the outstanding dues despite repeated reminders and recall and legal notices.

¶22

B. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the respondent did not allow restructuring of loan as per RBI/ 14inistry of Finance guidelines hotdtng the field. The OA has not been verified by the Advocate. Hence on these two counts, the OA is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶24

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA schedule assets as prayed For?

¶25

According to learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank, defendant failed to clear the dues as per the agreed terms. The material documents placed as Exs. A.1 to A.11 marked through AW.1 amply prove the claim in favour of the applicant and against the defendant. The defendant did not adduce any N^*

¶26

oA.9412022

¶27

¶28

evldence to substantiate her defence.^{Hence learned counsel} prayed for allowing the OA.

¶29

rL. There is no denial of defendant^{availing loan from the applicant} bank. There is also^{no denial of committingdefault in} repayment of loan amount as^{per agreed terms. As stated} supra, defendant's right of adducing^{evidence has been} forfeited. Except filing^{written statement, nospecific} order/guidelines on the^{restructure and conversionof irregular} portion of Term Loan and FITL accounts issued by^{RBI or} Ministry of Finance and alleged to have^{beenfloutedby the} applicant bank has been filed^by the^{defendant. Therefore,the} contentions of the defendant do^{not deserve acceptance.} Accordingly, the Evidence^{Affidavit coupledwith the recitalsin} documents viz.. Exs.A.1^{to A.11 markedon behalf of the Applicant Bank,} clinches the claim of the^{Applicant Bank against the DefendantsHence} the defendant is liable to^{paythe OA claim to the applicantbank.}

¶30

in the result, the^present Original^{ApplicationNo.9412022 is} allowed as under:^-

¶31

i) The Defendant is llable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.95,52,699.62Ps with future interest @9.90%^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of rea lization;

¶32

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the /fu*

¶33

oA.94/2022

¶34

applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the same for recovery of its dues;

¶35

iii) the applicant bank is also entiUed to proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues; and

¶36

iv) the applicant bank is entifled for the costs.

¶37

13' The Applicant Bank is directed to fire cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶38

t4. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly,

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned, (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on thisthezTthdayof Jury,2023).

¶40

fdW* (-/

¶41

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Sanjana Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sanjana Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Idbi Bank versus M/s Smartway Group

Union Bank of India versus Umesh

Idbi Bank versus Sushanta Kumar

State Bank of India versus Buta Singh

Ms Govindraj Traders through Its Prop Shri Vijay So Vinayak Keshattiwar versus State Bank of India

Ms Dhanshri Lal Hira Hari Patanjali Jila Vitarak Kendra and Ors. versus State Bank of India