Allowed

Canara Bank v. Ms Revel Industries

DRT25 Sept 2025OA/106/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank’s Original Application for recovery of dues amounting to Rs. 39,87,460.32 along with interest. The defendants failed to repay sanctioned loans and security facilities. The Court ruled the bank legally entitled to the amount and directed issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate to be issued for Rs. 39,87,460.32 plus interest @8% p.a.; defendants directed to pay within two months; sale of assets permitted if payment delayed.

Canara Bank versus Ms Revel Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶2

a proceeding
O.A.No.106/2022 25.09.2025	The Judgment is signed pronounced on separate sheets. Separ attachedin07 sheets. Order be uploaded on the Tribu website.	and ately nal’s
	(Dictated) r- (p„„,K,„I)( PresidingOffic	,qh) er
	(MK)

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶4

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶5

Case No. Original Application No.106 of 2022

¶6

Dated: 25.09.2025

¶7

Ca nara Bank, SMV Branch, I<hu rja, Bulandshahar (U.P.)

¶8

........Applicant-bankgHHI

¶9

Versus

¶10

M/s Revel Industries, 529, Kappalpura, Baroli Road, Khurja, Distt. – Bulandshahar (U.P.) Through its Proprietor Mohd. Arif Jamali. 2. Mohd. Arif Jamali, S/o Salahuddin, 529, Kappalpura, Baroli Road, Khurja, Distt. Bulandshahar (U.P.) – 203131. 3. Gulistan Praveen W/o Mohd. Arif Jamali, 526, Saray Allo-3, Khurja, Distt. Bulandshahar (U.P.) – 203131.

¶11

Ld. Counsel for Applicant-bank: Shri Anoop Kumar Mishra, Advocate Ld. Counsel for the Defendant No.1 & 2: Shri S. Upadhayay, Advocate Ld. Counsel for the Defendant No.3: Shri Nitesh Kumar Triapthi, Advocate

¶12

JUDGEMENT

¶13

This Original Application has been filed by the Applicant-bank under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for the recovery of Rs.39,87,460.32/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs, Eighty Seven Thousand, Four Hundred Sixty and Paisa Thirty Two Only) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc. 2. The brief facts of case :- the defendant No.1 is a proprietorship firm of

¶14

which defendant no.2 is the sole proprietor and the defendant No.3, the

O.A. No. 106 of 2022

wife of the defendant no 2 is the guarantor. The defendant No.2 on behalf of defendant no.1 had approached the Applicant-bank for grant of Rs.3.00 lacs over draft cash credit facility and Rs.12.00 lacs term loan facility for enhancement of business vide its sanction letter dated 25.03.2014 on certain terms and conditions (Exhibit No. A-2 & Exhibit No. A-3) to this Original Application, it was sanctioned.

¶19

To secure aforesaid credit facilities, defendant No.2 on behalf of the defendant No.1 had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the Applicant-bank on 28.03.2014. The defendant No.2 & 3 signed and executed Guarantee Agreement dated 30.04.2015 (Exhibit No.A-4 to Exhibit No.A-7) to this Original Application.

¶20

In order to further secure the repayment of the bank dues, the defendant No.2 created equitable mortgage in respect of property i.e. Land and Building situated at, part of Khasra No.529 measuring 332.39 square meter near Kappalpura, Kasba – Khurja, Pargana and Tehsil – Khaya, Bulandshahar (U.P.) in favour of the bank by deposit of title deed (Exhibit No. A-8 & Exhibit No. A-9) to this Original Application.

¶21

That the applicant bank has also obtained value of secured assets by approved valuer of Bank namely, A. K. Govil & Associates, a copy of which is being annexed as (Exhibit No. A-10) to this Original Application.

¶22

That the said OCC facility was renewed on 08.05.2015 and 16.05.2016. The said facility was also enhanced on 16.05.2016 from Rs.3.00 lacs to Rs.7.00 laos for purpose of enhancement the defendants furnished/executed Pronote (NF – 480) dated 16.05.2016 and supplemental agreement (NF-718) dated 16.05.2016 alongwith linked letter in respect of

¶23

¶24

O.A. No. 106 of 2022

¶25

eraancement of credit facility dated 16.05.2016 for the purpose of linking the documents executed earlier by the defendants to the such enhancement, a copy of which is being annexed as (Exhibit No. A-11 to Exhibit No. A-14) to this Original Application.

¶26

That the defendant No.1 and 2 again requested for renewal and enhancement of said OCC facility from Rs.10.00 lacs to Rs.15.00 laos for working capital requirement by submitting application form dated 06.09.2018, a copy of which is being annexed as (Exhibit No. A-15 Exhibit No. A- 16) to this Original Application.

¶27

That the defendants again executed pronote dated 06.09.2018, supplemental agreement dated 06.09.2018 for applying the terms and 11 conditions of principal agreement as well as Supplemental Agreement on such enhancement also, a copy of which is being annexed as (Exhibit No. A- 18 & Exhibit No. A- 19) to this original application.

¶28

To avail the aforesaid credit facility, the Applicant-bank had opened two loan accounts in the name of defendant No. 1 in order to maintain the credit facilities.

¶29

After availing the aforesaid credit facility, the defendants failed to IHH 1 maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, consequently, the loan account of the defendant no.1/firm was classified as NPA on 3 1.03.2019 by the bank as per 11 RBI guidelines (Exhibit No. A-20), thereafter the Applicant-bank issued Recall Notice dated 19.06.2021 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the defendants (Exhibit No. A-23), but, the defendants stated no-response and they failed to repay the same and the loan accounts of the defendants are still un-liquidated, hence, this Original Application has been instituted.

¶30

¶31

O.A. No. 106 of 2022

¶32

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.39,87,460.32/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs, Eighty Seven Thousand, Four Hundred Sixty and Paisa Thirty Two Only) including interest upto 23.10.2021, were lying due for payment, for which the defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the same, which they did not pay despite repeated requests and demand. The Applicant-bank filed the Statement of loan Accounts. (Exhibit No.A-22) to this Original Application.

¶33

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 24.03.2014 when OCC loan facility of Rs.3.00 lacs and Term Loan Facility of Rs.12.00 lacs was sanctioned and granted to defendants and on 28.03.2014 when defendants executed various documents for availing the said loan facilities. The cause of action further arose on 08.05.2015, 16.05.2016, 21.07.2017 and 06.09.2018 when said OCC Loan Facility was renewed. The cause of action further arose on when recall Notice dated 19.06.2021 was sent to the defendants, recalling the entire outstanding dues and they failed to pay the same.

¶34

The summons were served upon the defendants through registered post, all the defendants through counsels have appeared before this Tribunal on 30.03.2022, but no written statement has been filed so far hence, the opportunity to file the written statement is closed. The case is proceeded against the defendants.

¶35

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the defendants were provided with fair opportunities to contest the claim of the bank. As the

r~r

O.A. No. 106 of 2022

defendants opted not to contest the case, so only point of consideration before this Tribunal is as to whether bank is legally entitled to the amount as claimed in Original Application on the basis of documents and pleading submitted by it.

¶40

In support of the case Shri Mukesh Kumar, Manager of the Applicantbank has filed an affidavit.

¶41

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibits marked as Exhibit No.A-1 to Exhibit No.A-23, it is proved that defendants had availed the credit facilities from the Applicant-bank by executing loan and security documents detailed as above in favour of the Applicant-bank. A perusal of the application, evidence and documents relied upon clearly show that defendant had utilized the above loan facilities as granted to them. The Applicant-bank had maintained the Books of account in the ordinary course of banking business showing disbursal of the loan amount. The Bank had also charged interest from time to time and the entries are relevant u/s 4 of the Banker Books of Evidence Act. It is also proved that the Applicant-bank’s claim is within limitation against defendants, therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the dues.

¶42

Accordingly, the defendants are directed to pay the balance dues to the Applicant-bank within a period of 2 months from the date of judgement failing which the Applicant-bank will be entitled to sell the mortgaged property, hypothecated assets and personal assets/ properties of the

defendants

1
b h

O.A. No. 106 of 2022

The Applicant-bank has claimed [email protected]% per annum with monthly rest w.e.f. 23.10.2021 till the date of realization and costs. On the basis of foregoing discussion, interest of justice will be served if pendentlite and future interest is granted @8% per annum with monthly rest reducing balance from the date of filing of the O.A. till the date of realization with costs.

¶48

1 find that the bank has proved the execution of loan documents and creation of mortgage in its favour. In the result, the Original Application succeeds as proceeded against the defendants with costs. The bank has proved the loan execution of loan documents in favour of the bank and availment of credit facility. The liability of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are joint and several and mortgaged property, hypothecated asset as well as the

¶49

personal properties are to be sold.

¶50

It is, therefore , ordered

¶51

(i) That the Original Application No.106 of 2022 of the Applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.39,87,460.32/(Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs, Eighty Seven Thousand, Four Hundred Sixty and Paisa Thirty Two Only) along with the interest @8% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e.27.11.2022 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds as

¶52

proceeded against the defendants.

¶53

(ii) The defendants are directed to pay the dues within a period of two months from the date of judgement, failing which the Applicant-bank

(IIIIb\ r A

O.A. No. 106 of 2022

will be entitled to recover the same from the secured assets, personal movables and immovable assets of the defendants

¶58

(iii) The Applicant–bank is entitled to recover aforesaid amount by sale of mortgage property & hypothecated assets (if not sold earlier under the provision of the S.A.R.F.A.E.S.I. Act 2002). The amount, if any already recovered by sale of any hypothecated assets or otherwise shall be recoverable,- if the dues of the Applicant-bank still remain unsatisfied, the same shall be recovered by attachment and sale of the personal movable assets of the defendant jointly and severally.

¶59

(iV) The defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing with their properties/estates without first paying the claim of the Applicant-bank.

¶60

(V) Let Recovery Certificate be issued immediately u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 by fixing 18.12.2025 before R.O., DRT, Lucknow.

¶61

(vi) The Applicant-bank is directed to file a memo of cost for preparing Recovery Certificate u/s 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts Bankruptcy Act, 1993 .

¶62

Judgment is pronounced in the open court.

¶63

Dated : 25.09.2025

¶64

(Pravas Kumar Singh) Presiding Officer

¶65

(MK)

Canara Bank v. Ms Revel Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Ms Revel Industries

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

Punjab National Bank (United Bank of India) versus M/S Shree Ji Garments

Ms Yashansh Enterprises and Other versus Uco Bank

M S Hnt Manpower Services Ltd. versus Bank of Maharashtra

Canara Bank versus Mr Ayodhya Prasad

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Seema Jain

State Bank of India versus Ms Nishkriti Foods Private Limited