Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Lakshmi Furniture Store

DRT29 Sept 2025OA/1815/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an OA filed by Canara Bank for recovery of Rs.47,15,094.84 with interest against the defendants, who had failed to repay term loans and a cash credit limit despite being duly served with summonses.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; recovery of Rs.47,15,094.84 with interest and costs; joint and several liability recognized; recovery certificate issued.

Canara Bank versus M/S Lakshmi Furniture Store — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1815/2022 Date of Institution: 03.09.2022 Date of Decision: 29.09.2025

¶4

Canara Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Railway Road Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Lakshmi Furniture Store, a proprietorship concern, through its proprietor Sh. Surinder Kumar r/o Lakkar Mandi, City Road Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶8

Sh. Surinder Kumar s/o Sh. Dwarka Nath, Proprietor M/s Lakshmi Furniture Store, r/o Lakkar Mandi, City Road Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶9

2nd Address:

¶10

H.no.118, New Dharampura Colony, Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶11

Sh. Rakesh Kumar Mahajan s/o Sh. Ashwani Kumar Mahajan, r/o H.No.112, Opposite Sharma Dairy, Khilonia Wali Gali, Batala, District Gurdaspur, Punjab.

¶12

……….Defendants

¶13

Advocates

¶14

Sh. Rajan Puri, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 09.05.2024 .

¶15

OA for the Recovery of Rs.47,15,094.84p with interest @9.55% per annum with monthly rests from 03.09.2022.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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.47,15,094.84p with interest against M/s Lakshmi Furniture Store and others (defendants).

¶18

Bank’s case is that on 30.09.2016, it had granted a Term Loan of Rs.10.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2

¶19

¶20

for Business purpose. On 20.09.2017, bank had granted a loan of Rs.25.00Lacs in the form of Overdraft Cash Credit Limit to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 for Business purpose. On 04.08.2018, the O.C.C. limit was enhanced from Rs.25.00 Lacs to Rs.35.00 Lacs. Again on 10.06.2020, bank had granted loan of Rs.7.00Lacs in the form of Working Capital Term Loan under GECL Scheme to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 for Business purpose. To secure the loans, Defendant No.3 had mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Defendant No.3 stood as guarantor for all the facilities. The loans were chargeable to different rates of interest. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 06.07.2018 & 03.12.2019 & 01.03.2021 & 03.07.2021. On 31.07.2022, a sum of Rs.47,15,094.84p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶21

On 16.11.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 09.05.2024, they were proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Madan Lal, Authorized Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-31. 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 31.07.2022, a sum of Rs.47,15,094.84p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.47,15,094.84p (Rupees Forty Seven Lacs Fifteen Thousand Ninety Four and Paise Eighty Four Only) with interest @9.55% per annum with monthly rests from 03.09.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed

¶22

¶23

with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property 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 03.11.2025, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property 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: 29.09.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Canara Bank v. M/S Lakshmi Furniture Store

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Lakshmi Furniture Store

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

State Bank of India versus Raghavendra

Indian Bank versus Gowramma

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Mallikarjuna

Hdfc Bank versus Ram Lubhaya

Punjab National Bank versus Balwinder Singh

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Sri Basavaraj