Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Lucky Plast India

DRT3 Nov 2025OA/16/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of Rs. 3,81,54,190.20 plus interest against the sole proprietorship firm and its proprietor and guarantor, who were absent. The order directed the creation of a recovery certificate and appearance before the Recovery Officer.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs. 3,81,54,190.20 with interest at 10.40% per annum from 27.12.2021; ordered issuance of recovery certificate.

Canara Bank versus M/S Lucky Plast India — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 16/2022 Date of Institution: 27.12.2021 Date of Decision: 03.11.2025

¶4

Canara Bank at 1-C/01, Shop No. 3 and 4, SME Branch, Bata Hardware Road, Tata Steel Warehouse, NIT Faridabad, Haryana

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Lucky Plast India, a sole Proprietorship concern, c/o Plot No. 46, Gali No. 47, 33 Feet Road, Sanjay Colony Faridabad, Haryana, through its sole Proprietor Sh. Jai Parkash Singh

¶8

Sh. Jai Parkash Singh S/o Sh. Amar Dev Singh, Sole proprietor M/s Lucky Plast India, r/o Plot No. 46, Gali No. 47, 33 Feet Road, Sanjay Colony Faridabad, Haryana

¶9

Smt. Rita Singh w/o Sh. Jai Parkash Singh, r/o Plot No. 46, Gali No. 47, 33 Feet Road, Sanjay Colony Faridabad, Haryana

¶10

…….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh. Yogesh Kumar proxy counsel for Sh. Rakesh gupta, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶13

Defendants- ex parte

¶14

OA for the Recovery of Rs.3,81,54,190.20p with interest @10.40% per annum with monthly rests from 27.12.2021

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Canara Bank (Applicant Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB

¶17

¶18

Act) for the recovery of Rs.3,81,54,190.20p with interest against M/s Lucky Plast India and Others (defendants).

¶19

Defendant No. 1 is a Proprietorship firm of defendant No. 2. Bank’s case is that on 14.12.2011, it had granted loans of Rs.40.00 Lacs in the form of CC Facility which was enhanced and reduced many times finally enhanced to Rs.50.00 Lacs and Rs.10.00 Lacs in the form of Term Loan Facility-I, on 17.10.2013, it had granted Rs.23.00 Lacs in the form of Term Loan Facility-II, on 06.12.2018, it had granted Rs.21.00 Lacs in the form of Term Loan Facility-III, on 09.09.2019, it had granted Rs.260.00 Lacs in the form of Term Loan Facility-IV, on 13.04.2020, it had granted Rs.17.50 Lacs in the form of Term Loan Facility-V and on 23.10.2020, it had granted Rs.50.00 Lacs in the form of Term Loan Facility-VI to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for business purpose. Defendant No. 3 stood as guarantor. To secure the loans, the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had mortgaged their property(ies) (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application) and LIC Policies (fully detailed in para No.5(as) of the application). The loans were chargeable at various rate of interests. Defendants had acknowledged and admitted their liability for debt on 24.10.2013, 29.12.2015, 20.07.2017, 07.12.2018, 10.09.2019 and 03.04.2021. On 01.12.2021, a sum of Rs.3,81,54,190.20p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶20

On 07.03.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 06.11.2023, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶21

¶22

4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the
affidavit of Sh. Ratnesh Kumar, Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-59.
5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered
view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of
Rs.431.50 Lacs and on 01.12.2021, a sum of Rs.3,81,54,190.20p was due.
6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of
Rs.3,81,54,190.20p (Rupees Three Crore Eighty One Lacs Fifty Four Thousand One Hundred Ninety and Twenty Paisa Only) with interest @10.40% per annum with monthly rests from 27.12.2021, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property(ies) fully detailed in paraNo.3Aof the application as well as from the hypothecated assets/stocks/goods/book debts etc. and personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.
7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on
12.12.2025, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the
mortgage property(ies) as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act.
10. A copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to
the Recovery Officer as well as the parties.
Pronounced in the open Court (A S Narang) Dated: 03.11.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-2, Chandigarh (Additional charge)

Canara Bank v. M/S Lucky Plast India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Lucky Plast India

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Harjit Singh

Canara Bank versus Shri Harpal Singh

Idbi Bank versus Amrik Kaur

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Sai Constructions

State Bank of India versus Sh. Harnek Singh

Union Bank of India versus M/S Tathagat Enterprises