Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Surinder Singh Wine Shop

DRT22 Jul 2025OA/21/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed an application for recovery of Rs.1.32 crores with interest by Canara Bank against a wine shop proprietorship firm and its partners. The bank had advanced various loan facilities secured by mortgage and guarantee. The application was allowed ex parte after the respondents failed to appear.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.1,32,03,135.51p with interest @11.25% per annum from date of application allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; Sale of mortgaged properties ordered.

Canara Bank versus M/S Surinder Singh Wine Shop — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 21 of 2023 Date of Institution: 21.12.2022 Date of Decision: 22.07.2025

¶4

Canara Bank, having its Head Office at 112, J. C. Road, Bangalore and having branches all over India and one of its branches amongst other places at Shalamar Road, Jammu District Jammu, J & K.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

M/s Surinder Singh Wine Shop, a proprietorship firm, having its place of business at Main Chowk Janipur, Jammu, District Jammu (J& K) through its sole proprietor Mr. Vijayant Pathania.

¶7

Sh. Vijayant Pathania S/o Sh. Surinder Singh Pathania, sole proprietor of M/s Surinder Singh Wine Shop, R/o H. No.92, Near Telephone Exchange, Exchange Road, Dogra Hall, Jammu District Jammu (J& K) 180001.

¶8

Smt. Anuradha Pathania W/o Sh. Vijayant Pathania, R/o H. No.92, Near Telephone Exchange, Exchange Road, Dogra Hall, Jammu District Jammu (J& K) 180001.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Sh. Nitin Grover, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants- Ex parte.

¶12

OA for the Recovery of Rs.1,32,03,135.51p with interest from the date of filing the present application i.e. 21.12.2022.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Canara Bank (Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.1,32,03,135.51p with interest against M/s Surinder Singh Wine Shop And Others(defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 23.03.2018, it had granted CC Limit of Rs.25.00 lacs to defendant no.1 through its sole proprietor defendant no.2 for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant no. 2 had

¶16

¶17

mortgaged his immovable property (fully detailed in para No.4 of the application/ Schedule ‘A’).

¶18

2(a). Thereafter, on 27.08.2019, at the request of Defendant No.1, through its proprietor Defendant No.2, the bank enhanced the Cash Credit (CC) limit from Rs.25.00 lakhs to Rs.50.00 lakhs. Defendant No.3 stood as guarantor by executing a guarantee covering letter and a guarantee agreement, both dated 19.10.2019 (Annexures A-14 and A- 15). To secure the loan, Defendant no. 2 extended the mortgage over the immovable property described in Schedule ‘A’ and also created a mortgage over the immovable property described in Schedule ‘B’.

¶19

2(b). Subsequently, on 13.05.2020, at the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2, bank had granted WCTL (Covid Scheme) of Rs.6.00 lacs. Defendant No.3 stood as guarantor by executing a guarantee covering letter and a guarantee agreement, both dated 27.05.2020 (Annexures A-27 and A-28).

¶20

2(c). On 25.01.2021, at the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2, bank enhanced the Cash Credit (CC) limit from Rs.50.00 lakhs to Rs.90.00 lakhs. Defendant No.3 stood as guarantor by executing a guarantee covering letter and a guarantee agreement, both dated 25.01.2021 (Annexures A-34 and A-35).

¶21

2(d). During the Covid-19 Pandemic Situation, on 01.09.2020 and 27.05.2021, at the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2, bank had granted FITL loan of Rs.3,53,027/- and Term Loan (GECL) of Rs.12.00 lacs, respectively. On 08.07.2021, bank had restructured the loan facilities availed by defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 (Annexure A-44).

¶22

¶23

2(e). Lastly, on 30.12.2021, at the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2, bank had granted GECL 1.0 Extension loan facility of Rs.15.00 lacs. To secure all the loan facilities, Defendant no. 2 extended the mortgage over the immovable properties described in Schedule ‘A’& Schedule ‘B’ (Annexure A-52 to A-55). The said loan facilities were chargeable to different rate of interest. On 06.06.2022, defendants had executed the acknowledgment of debt and security vide Annexure A-56. On 29.09.2022, a sum of Rs.1,32,03,135.51p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶24

On 12.01.2023, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 26.04.2024, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶25

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Prahlad Agrawal, Authorized Representative along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A- 63. 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 different loan facilities and on 29.09.2022, a sum of Rs.1,32,03,135.51p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.1,32,03,135.51p (Rupees One Crore Thirty-Two Lacs Three Thousand One Hundred Thirty-Five And Paisa Fifty-One Only) with interest @11.25% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing the present application i.e. 21.12.2022, 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 properties,

¶26

¶27

fully detailed in para No.3A of the application/ Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’, as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶28

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 25.08.2025 , who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage properties 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: 22^nd July, 2025 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh (R)

Canara Bank v. M/S Surinder Singh Wine Shop

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Surinder Singh Wine Shop

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

Harjit Kaur versus Hdfc Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Dahikar Automobile,through Its Proprietor, Shri Sachin S/O. Vijay Dahikar

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sanjay Kumar

Mrs Sangita Biswas versus Bank of Baroda

Sri Binod Kumar Gupta Proprietor of M S Shiv Shakti Enterprise versus Indian Bank

Shri Rajesh Kumar son of Late Shri Rehaman versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited