Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Shiva Enterprises

DRT7 Jul 2025OA/1680/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Canara Bank's original application for recovery of Rs. 62,87,393.62p plus interest against Shiva Enterprises and Anita Gupta. The Tribunal issued a Recovery Certificate and directed the sale of hypothecated assets to discharge the liability.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 62,87,393.62p with interest; issuance of Recovery Certificate; direction to recover dues by sale of assets.

Canara Bank versus M/S Shiva Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1680/2024 Date of Institution: 07.08.2024 Date of Decision: 07.07.2025

¶4

Canara Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Shakuntala Complex, Opposite High Court Road, Janipur, Jammu, J&K.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

M/s Shiva Enterprises, Uttam Nagar, Kunjwani Bye Pass, Near Industrial Area, Gangyal Jammu, J&K, through its proprietor Anita Gupta.

¶7

Anita Gupta w/o Sh. Rajinder Kumar Gupta, R/o H.No.1135, Sector-8, Near R.N School, Nanak Nagar, Jammu, J&K.

¶8

……….Defendants

¶9

Advocates

¶10

Sh. Randeep Singh on VC, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 02.07.2025 .

¶11

OA for the Recovery of Rs.62,87,393.62p with interest from 07.08.2024.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Canara Bank has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.62,87,393.62p with interest against M/s Shiva Enterprises and another (defendants).

¶14

Defendant no. 1 is the proprietorship firm of Defendant no.2. Bank’s case is that on 30.08.2017, it had granted a Term Loan of Rs.4.00 Lacs and an Overdraft Facility of Rs.6.00 Lacs, to Defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. Defendant No.2 for Business purpose. The abovementioned O.D. Limit was enhanced and renewed from time to time and lastly on 24.07.2020, it was enhanced and renewed at Rs.35.00 Lacs. To secure the loan, Defendant no.1 had hypothecated assets (fully detailed

¶15

¶16

in para no. 3A of the application). Defendant no. 2 stood as the guarantor. The loans were chargeable to different rates of interest with monthly rests.

¶17

2A) On 07.11.2017, the applicant Bank on the request of defendant No.2 issued a Term Loan of Rs.4,15,000/- to Defendants for the purchase of Vehicle. To secure the loan, Defendant no.2 through its proprietor Defendant no.1 hypothecated vehicle i.e. TATA SUPER ACE MINT bearing registration no. JK02BW9603 (fully detailed in para no. 3A of the application). The Term Loan Facility was chargeable to interest @10.45% per annum with monthly rests.

¶18

2B) Again on the request of Defendant No.2, on 30.05.2020 Bank had granted a loan of Rs.3.49 Lacs in the form of WCTL. To secure the loan, Defendant no.1 had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para no.3A of the application). The WCTL Facility was chargeable @10% per annum with monthly rests.

¶19

2C) Subsequently, on 09.06.2020, it had granted a GECL limit for Rs.7.00 Lacs. To secure the loan, Defendant no.1 had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para no.3A of the application). The GECL Facility was chargeable @9.25% per annum with monthly rests.

¶20

2D) Lastly, on 01.12.2021, on the request of defendant No.2 the applicant bank had granted another GECL limit of Rs.5.50 Lacs. To secure the loan, Defendant No.2 on behalf of defendant No.1 had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). The GECL Facility was chargeable @9.25% per annum with monthly rests. On 10.06.2024, a total sum of Rs.62,87,393.62p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶21

¶22

On 19.11.2024, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 02.07.2025, they were proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Kanav Billawaria, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-54. 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 loans under various schemes and on 10.06.2024, a sum of Rs.62,87,393.62p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.62,87,393.62p (Rupees Sixty Two Lacs Eighty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Three and Paise Sixty Two Only) i.e. Rs.46,17,784.60p in the OD/CC Account with interest @9.45% per annum with monthly rests; Rs.2,17,485.83p in the TL Account with interest @10.45% per annum with monthly rests; Rs.5,15,701.04p in the WCTL Account with interest @10% per annum with monthly rests; 2,92,941.51p under GECL with interest @9.25% per annum with monthly rests; Rs.6,43,480.64p under the GECL Account with interest @9.25% per annum with monthly rests from 07.08.2024, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of both the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated assets fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the 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 12.08.2025, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the hypothecated assets as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act .

¶23

¶24

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: 07.07.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Canara Bank v. M/S Shiva Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Shiva Enterprises

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

Hdfc Bank versus Shri. Sonu Kumar

State Bank of India versus Shri. Amit Sharma

Icici Bank Limited versus Samir Saifi

Sri Pradip Chowdhury versus Punjab National Bank

Rosely Thomas versus Indian Overseas Bank

M G Sabu versus Indian Overseas Bank