Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sh. Pushpander Goel

DRT27 Jun 2024TA/1041/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for recovery of loan dues. The court found the bank's case well-proven as the defendant did not contest. It ordered recovery of principal, interest, and penal charges against the sale of hypothecated assets or defendant's property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.20,85,393.75 with interest and penalty from hypothecated assets or defendant's property via sale.

Canara Bank versus Sh. Pushpander Goel — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

T.A. No.1041 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, • Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No. 1041 of 2022

¶5

Canara Bank

¶6

Maurya Enclave Pitampura, Delhi-110034

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh.Pushpender Goel Proprietor of Prakshi Enterprises A-43, Wazirpur Industrial Area New Delhi-110052

¶10

Also at:

¶11

Sh.Pushpender Goel Proprietor of Prakshi Enterprises R/o 45, Block CP, Pitampura Delhi-110034 Defendant

¶12

Present: Shri Anshuman Srivastava, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶13

Date of Institution: 09.04.2021

¶14

Date of Pronouncement: 27.06.2024

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 09.04.2021 before DRT-III, Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Shri Ramesh Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act,1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,85,393.75 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Eighty Five Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Three and Paisa Seventy Five only) as on 28.02.2021

¶17

sd—

¶18

T.A. No.1041 of 2022

¶19

together with @10.20% pendentelite and future interest with monthly rest plus 2% penal interest from 28.02.2021 till its realization with costs.

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned Cash Credit facility for Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lacs only) and Term Loan of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs only) @10.20% on 03.10.2018 under MSME scheme against hypothecation of stocks, book debts and machinery to be purchased in favour of applicant bank.

¶21

That in order to avail the said loan facilities, the defendant submitted loan application dated 03.10.2018 under MSME scheme, Particulars of assets & liabilities dated 06.10.2018 and executed Sanction Letter dated 08.10.2018, Request for overdraft facility, Pronote, Cash Credit Agreement, Undertaking, Deed of hypothecation and Certificate of loan papers all dated 16.10.2018.

¶22

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant failed to honor its commitments to make the payment as per terms and conditions of the sanction and failed to regularize the accounts through various reminder letters issued by applicant bank. The applicant bank classified the accounts as NPA on 12.01.2020 but the defendant neglected to pay the dues. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶23

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 06.07.2022, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared

¶24

T.A. No.1041 of 2022

¶25

before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendant.

¶26

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Ramesh Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has submitted the documents such as Power of Attorney Ex.AW1/1, Loan Application Ex.AW1/2, Request for Overdraft Facility Ex.AW1/3, Particulars of Assets & Liabilities Ex.AW1/4^{, Pronote Ex.AW1/5, Cash Credit Agreement} Ex.AW1/6, Letter of Undertaking Ex.AW1/7, Deed of Hypothecation Ex.AW1/8, Specimen Signature Card Ex.AW1/9, Certificate of Loan Papers Ex.AW1/10, Certified Statement of Accounts u/s Bankers' Book of Evidence Act Ex.AW-1/11 & 12.

¶27

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly proved.

¶28

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶29

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(I) I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of

¶32

T.A. No.1041 of 2022

¶33

Rs.20,85,393.75 (Rupees Twenty Lacs Eighty Five Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Three and Paisa Seventy Five only) as on 28.02.2021 together with pendentelite and future interest @12.00% with monthly rest from 01.03.2021 till the date of realization failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts and machinery. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶34

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶35

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 27.08.2024.

¶36

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶37

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶38

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 27.06.2024

Canara Bank v. Sh. Pushpander Goel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sh. Pushpander Goel

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

Indira Harshad Kinariwala versus Shri Kaushal Umashankar Modi and Ors.

Union Bank of India versus Ramjibhai

Idbi Bank versus Praveshbhai

Icici Bank Limited versus Lukman

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus Amitoz Hospitality Services

Icici Bank Limited versus Shree Laxmi Industries (India)