Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Ramayani Rewari

DRT28 Aug 2025OA/632/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of Rs.1.03 Crore plus interest against the sole proprietorship concern and its owner-guarantors, who did not appear. The Tribunal confirmed the loan advances and obligated the defendants to repay the dues with interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.1,03,09,596/- with interest @9.50% per annum from 29.03.2022 allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; pending IAs disposed of.

Canara Bank versus M/S Ramayani Rewari — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 632/2022 Date of Institution: 29.03.2022 Date of Decision: 28.08.2025

¶4

Canara Bank at Rohtak Main Branch, Power House Chowk, Delhi Road, Rohtak, Haryana

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Ramayani Rewari, a Sole proprietorship concern c/o SCF110, First Floor Brass Market, Rewari, Haryana through its Sole Proprietor

¶8

Sh. Avinash Goyal s/o Sh. Ram Babu Goyal Sole Proprietor M/s Ramayani Rewari, r/o 334 /17 Nehru Street, Jhajjar Road, Rohtak, Haryana

¶9

Smt. Kavita Goyal w/o Sh. Rakesh Goyal, r/o 236/17, Vijay Nagar Jhajjar Road, Rohtak, Haryana.

¶10

Sh. Rakesh Goyal s/o Sh. Ramesh Chand, r/o House No 236/17, Vijay Nagar, Jhajjar Road, Rohatk 124001

¶11

……….Defendants

¶12

Advocates

¶13

Sh. Yogesh Kumar proxy Counsel for Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants- ex parte .

¶14

OA for the Recovery of Rs.1,03,09,596/- with interest @9.50% per annum with monthly rests from 29.03.2022.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Canara Bank (Applicant Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.1,03,09,596 /- with interest against M/s Ramayani Rewari and others (defendants).

¶17

¶18

Defendant No. 1 is a proprietorship firm of Defendant No. 2. Bank’s case is that on 11.09.2013, it had granted a loan of Rs.50.00 Lacs to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the form of OCC Limit for business purpose which was enhanced to Rs.70.00 Lacs on 31.01.2015 and the same was renewed again on 02.01.2017 and 26.08.2020. On 03.09.2020, Bank granted Rs.14.00 Lacs in the form of GECL Term Loan to Defendant Nos 1 and 2. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 stood as guarantors. To secure the loan, defendant had mortgaged their property(ies) (fully detailed in para No.5(aa) of the application). The OCC Limit was chargeable to interest @9.15% per annum with monthly rests and GECL Term Loan was chargeable to interest @7.50% per annum with monthly rests. Defendants had acknowledged and admitted their liability for debt on 31.01.2015, 15.03.2016, 02.11.2017 and 26.08.2020. On 28.02.2022, a sum of Rs.1,03,09,596 /- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶19

3. On 30.04.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by
registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not
put in appearance. Vide order dated 14.09.2023, they were proceeded_ex_
parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the
affidavit of Sh. Muzahid Ansari, Manager along with the loan and
security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-34.
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.84.00 Lacs and on 28.02.2022, a sum of Rs.1,03,09,596/-was due.
6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of
Rs.1,03,09,596/- (Rupees One Crore Three Lacs Nine Thousand Five

¶20

¶21

Hundred and Ninety Six Only) with interest @9.50% per annum with monthly rests from 29.03.2022 , 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 property(ies) fully detailed in para No.5(aa) 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 07.10.2025 , who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgage property(ies) and standing crops 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:28.08.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-2, Chandigarh (Additional charge)

Canara Bank v. M/S Ramayani Rewari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Ramayani Rewari

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

Manoj Cm versus Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Maninderjeet Kaur

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Dharmender

Andhra Bank versus Ms Ally India Products

Idfc First Bank Limited versus Sanjeev Kumar Gupta

Canara Bank versus Jitender Yadav