Allowed

Canara Bank v. Smt Gargi Chauhan

DRT13 Nov 2025OA/286/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex-parte application by Canara Bank against Smt. Gargi Chauhan for recovery of an outstanding loan of Rs. 22.62 lakhs. The court verified the loan documents, mortgage creation, and default, directing immediate recovery through a Recovery Certificate and sale of secured or personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 22,62,082.40/- plus 8% interest; defendant directed to pay dues within two months; injunction on asset transfer; recovery via sale of assets if unpaid.

Canara Bank versus Smt Gargi Chauhan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

DEBTS REC'OVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

¶3

1 proceeding	n	Officeaction takenwith date
O.A. No.286/2024 13.11.2025	The Judgment is signed and pronounced on separate sheets. Separately attachedin06 sheets. Order be uploaded on the Tribunal’s website.
	(Dictated)
	(PravasKurrTb_ lgh) PresidingOfficir
	(Mugish)

¶4

tN THE DEBTS REC'OVERY TRIBUNAL AT LUCKNOW

¶5

Present: Pravas Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer

¶6

Case No. Original Application No.286 of 2024

¶7

Dated: 13.11.2025

¶8

Canara Bank, having Branch at Jahangirabad, Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh.

¶9

........Applicant-bank

¶10

Versus

¶11

Smt. Gargi Chauhan, D/o Hemandra Singh, R/o -104 Khanauda, Pargana & Tehsil Anupsahar, District Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh- 203001. ......Defendant

¶12

Ld. Counsel for Applicant-bank: Shri Tasleem C2amar, Advocate Ld. Counsel for the Defendant: None.

¶13

JUDGEMENT

¶14

This Original Application has been filed by the Applicant-bank under

¶15

Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendant for the recovery of Rs.22,62,082.40/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs, Sixty Two Thousand, Eighty Two and Paisa Forty Only) together with pendent-lite and future interest, costs and other reliefs etc.

¶16

The brief facts of case are that the defendant No.1 being principal borrower approached the applicant bank for grant of K.C.C. Loan Facility of Rs.4.90 lacs and Term Loan of Rs.7.00 lacs vide its sanction letter dated 30.07.2018 & 28.04.2010 on certain terms and conditions (Exhibit No. A-2 to Annexure No. A-5) to this Original Application.

t\ -\h

O.A. No.286 of 2024

To secure aforesaid credit facility, defendant had executed and signed various security documents in favour of the Applicant-bank on 30.07.2018 (Annexure No.A-6 & Annexure No.A-7) to this Original Application.

¶21

In order to further secure the repayment of the bank dues, the defendant created equitable mortgage in respect of property i.e. “Total Agriculture Land” total area 4.90 acre. Khata No.30 Khasra No.47, 219, 223 Khata No.77 Khasra No.217, 258, Khata No.107 Khasra No.63, 221, 223 Khat No. 190 Khasra No.48, 218. Khata No.448 Khasra No.50. Khata No. 112 Khasra No.127 Situated at Village Khanauda P+ T Anupshahr District Bulandshahar U.P., in favour of the bank by deposit of title deed (Arulexure No. A-8 to Annexure No. A- 12) to this Original Application.

¶22

5 . To avail the aforesaid credit facility, the Applicant-bank had opened loan accounts in the name of defendant in order to maintain the credit facilities.

¶23

After availing the aforesaid credit facility, the defendant failed to maintain financial discipline and also failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, consequently, the loan account of the defendant /firm was classified as NPA on 30.01.2022 by the bank as per RBI guidelines, thereafter the Applicant-bank issued Legal Notice dated 07.10.2023 to the defendant (Annexure No. A-9 & Annexure No. A-10) acknowledgment of debt, but, the defendant stated no-response and they failed to repay the same and the loan accounts of the defendant are still unliquidated, hence, this Original Application has been instituted.

¶24

As per books of the bank maintained in the usual and ordinary course of banking business, an outstanding of Rs.22,62,082.40/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs, Sixty Two Thousand, Eighty Two and Paisa Forty Only) including

¶25

O.A. No.286 of 2024

¶26

¶27

interest upto 30.09.2023, were lying due for payment, for which the defendant is liable to repay the same, which they did not pay despite repeated requests and demand. The Applicant-bank filed the Statement of loan Accounts. (Annexure No.A-11 to Annexure No.A-13) to this Original Application.

¶28

The cause of action for filing the present application arose firstly on 30.07.2018 when the aforesaid credit facility were sanctioned by the Applicant-bank and the same were availed by the defendant and necessary documents were executed by the defendant. The cause of action further arose on when legal notice dated 07.10.2023 was sent to the defendant, recalling the entire outstanding dues and they failed to pay the same.

¶29

The summons were served upon the defendant through registered post, but the defendant did not appear before the Tribunal to contest his case, hence the matter proceeded ex- parte against the defendant.

¶30

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

¶31

In support of the case Shri D. C. Chaudhary, Chief Manager of the Applicant-bank has filed an affidavit.

¶32

On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on affidavit and Exhibits marked as Annexure No.A-1 to Annexure No.A-14J it is proved that

O.A. No.286 of 2024

defendant 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 defendant, therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the dues.

¶37

Accordingly, the defendant is 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 defendant.

¶38

The Applicant-bank has claimed [email protected]% per annum with monthly rest w.e.f. 30.09.2023 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.

¶39

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 exparte against the defendant with costs. The bank has proved

¶40

5 O.A. No.286 of 2024

¶41

the loan execution of loan documents in favour of the bank and availment of credit facility. The liability of the defendant No.1 and mortgaged property, hypothecated asset as well as the personal properties are to be sold.

¶42

It is, therefore , ordered

¶43

(i) That the Original Application No.286 of 2024 of the Applicant bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate to the tune of Rs.22,62,082.40/(Rupees Twenty Two Lacs, Sixty Two Thousand, Eighty Two and Paisa Forty Only) along with the interest @8% per annum with monthly rest from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 30.12.2023 till the loan is fully liquidated and costs succeeds ex-parte against the defendant.

¶44

(ii) The defendant is directed to pay the dues within a period of two months from the date of judgement, failing which the Applicant_bank will be entitled to recover the same from the secured assets/ personal movables and immovable assets of the defendant.

¶45

(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 amountJ if any already recovered by sale of any hypothe(.ated 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.

¶46

(iV) The defendant are hereby restrained by means of injunction from

¶47

depleting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way dealing

¶48

O.A. No.286 of 2024

¶49

¶50

with his properties/estates without first paying the claim of the

¶51

Applicant-bank.

¶52

(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 22.01.2026 before R.O., DRT, Lucknow.

¶53

(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 .

¶54

Judgment is pronounced in the open court.

¶55

Dated: 13.11.2025

¶56

(Pravas Kumar Sirigh) Presiding Officer

¶57

(MK)

Canara Bank v. Smt Gargi Chauhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Smt Gargi Chauhan

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

Ms Bushrah Export House versus Indusind Bank Limited

Babita Pal versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Mr Suneel Kumar versus Housing development finance corporation Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/s. M.H. Textiles

Bank of India versus Mr Aninda

Assets Reconstruction Company India Limited versus Sri Ravindra Bahadur Singh