Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Shree International

DRT3 May 2025TA/1332/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi allowed an original application filed by Canara Bank against M/s Shree International and Smt. Kiran Jonwal for recovery of a loan of Rs. 66,08,872 along with interest due to default in repaying an overdraft facility.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay Rs. 66,08,872 with interest within 30 days; recovery from sale of hypothecated and movable properties in case of shortfall.

Canara Bank versus M/S Shree International — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 1332 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma T.A. No.1332 of 2022
Canara bank SME Branch, 30-31
Commercial Complex
Wazirpur Industrial area
Delhi-110052 Applicant
Versus
1.M/s Shree International Through its Proprietor Smt. Kiran Jonwal
2.Smt. Kiran Jonwal
Both at:
WZ-8/1, Hind Nagar
Chowk Handi, Tilak Nagar Delhi-110018 Defendants
Present: Sh. Arun Kumar Shukla, Counsel for applicant bank
Date of Institution: 24.07.2019
Date of Pronouncement: 03.05.2025 FINAL ORDER

¶4

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 24.07.2019 before DRT-III Delhi, and then transferred to DRT-1 through Sh.Dhananjay Sahay, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.66,08,872/- (Rupees

¶5

T.A. No. 1332 of 2022

¶6

Sixty Six Lacs Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Two only) as on 30.06.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest @9.10% per annum with monthly rests and @2% penal interest from 01.04.2019 till the date of realization along with costs.

¶7

The brief facts of the case are that on the requa,t of the defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 being proprietor vide oan application dated 02.11.2017, the applicant bank

¶8

sanctioned Open Cash Credit (Hypothecation) Facility for a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lacs only) on 17.11.2017 @9.10% interest per annum with monthly rests against hypothecation of stocks and book debts etc.

¶9

In order to avail the loan facilities, the defendants submitted loan application dated 02.11.2017 and executed Letter of Proprietorship (NF-110), Pronote (NF-480), Request for Overdraft Facility (NF-372), Common Hypothecation Agreement all dated 30.11.2017 in favour of the applicant bank.

¶10

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to regularize the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 31.03.2019 as per RBI guidelines and a legal notice dated 20.07.2019 was issued but the defendants neglected the same and failed to clear the outstanding dues. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues. 5d

¶11

T.A. No. 1332 of 2022

¶12

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and I espite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent rom the proceedings. As per order dated 01.06.2022, the efendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared efore the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and ffidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶13

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its vidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Dhananjay Sahay, uthorized representative of the applicant bank, who has roved the documents as power of Attorney Ex.AW-1, 1, Loan pplication Ex.AW-1/2, Sanction letter Ex.AW-1/3, Letter of roprietorship NF110 Ex.AW-1/4, Pronote Ex.AW-1/5, Request or overdraft Facility Ex.AW-1/6, Common Hypothecation greement Ex.AW-1/7, Recall Notice Ex.AW-1/8, Statement of ccount Ex.AW-1/9.

¶14

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the ay.2rments ade in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the pplicant bank is based on the documents and the same have een duly approved.

¶15

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and here is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant ank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond easonable doubts.

¶16

In the light of the above discussions, the Original pplication deserves to be allowed.

¶17

T.A. No. 1332 of 2022

¶18

ORDER

¶19

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.66,08,872/- (Rupees Sixty Six Lacs Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Two only) as on 30.06.2019 together with pendentelite and future interest ©11.10% per annum with monthly rests from 01.07.2019 (interest has been charged upto 30.06.2019) till the date of realization and costs; failing which

¶20

he aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of iypothecated stock and book debts etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and mmovable properties of the defendants.

¶21

II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent o the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶22

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 02.07.2025.

¶23

(IV)^{Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be} sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶24

�0 . -- y)-0 -) i — (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶25

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 03.05.2025

Canara Bank v. M/S Shree International

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Shree International

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

B Gopalan and Two Others versus India Resurgence Arc Private Limited

Canara Bank versus Suresh Kulagi

Hdfc Bank versus Khajasab Hosmani

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Mahavir Auto Industries

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus Vikas Chemical

Icici Bank Limited versus Mrs. Anita