Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Vihaan Shutters and Engineers

DRT9 Oct 2025TA/1604/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an applicant bank's application for a recovery certificate. The Tribunal rejected the respondents' objections regarding blank documents and uncertified accounts, noting the evidence remained unchallenged. It directed the payment of the principal sum with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs.51,83,002/- plus 12% p.a. interest from 27.09.2019 with monthly rests and costs, recoverable from hypothecated stocks or property.

Canara Bank versus M/S Vihaan Shutters and Engineers — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 1604 of 2022

¶2

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

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No.1604 of 2022

Canara Bank

(e-Syndicate Bank)

59, Rani Jhansi road

New Delhi-110055 Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

M/s Vihaan Shutters & Engineers Through its Proprietor Sh. Abhinav Bajaj Plot no.359, Shanti Colony Enclave Sector-5 Road, Gurgaon Haryana-122001

¶11

Sh. Abhinav Bajaj s/o Sh. S.P. Bajaj Prop. of M/s Vihaan Shutters & Engineers Lot no.359, Shanti Colony Enclave Sector-5 Road, Gurgaon Haryana-122001

¶12

Also at:

¶13

Sh. Abhinav Bajaj s/o Sh. S.P. Bajaj 1600, Sector-15, Part-II Gurgaon, Haryana-122001

¶14

Also at:

¶15

Sh. Abhinav Bajaj s/o Sh. S.P. Bajaj 747, Sector-15, Part-II Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Defendants

¶16

Present: Ms. Rekha Rastogi, Counsel for applicant bank Mr. Anirudh Kumar, Counsel for the defendants

¶17

Date of Reserve: 11.09.2025

¶18

Date of Pronouncement: 09.10.2025

¶19

¶20

T.A. No. 1604 of 2022

¶21

FINAL ORDER

¶22

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi on 27.09.2019 through Sh. Vikash Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debt and Bankruptcy Act 1993 against the defendant for recovery of Rs.51,83,002/- (Rupees Fifty One Lacs Eighty Three Thousand Two only) as on 26.09.2019, out of which Rs.23,53,997/- towards SOD limit along with pendentelite and future interest @13.15% and Rs.28,29,005/along with pendentelite and future interest @10.65% per annum in Term loan account plus 2% penal interest from 27.09.2019 till the date of realization along with costs.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 as proprietor, the applicant bank sanctioned SOD Facility for Rs.17,00,000/(Rupees Seventeen Lacs only) and Term Loan of Rs.28,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs only) on 30.03.2017 @10.5% and @10.75% interest per annum respectively on 30.03.2017 against hypothecation of stock and book debts covered under CGTMSE scheme. The Term Loan was to be repayable in 60 Equated Monthly installments of Rs.60,000/w.e.f. 30.05.2017. The defendants also agreed to pay penal interest @2% per annum in case of default or delay in repayment.

¶24

In order to avail the loan facilities, the defendants submitted Loan Application Form and executed Letter of Proprietorship, Composite Hypothecation Agreement, Power of

¶25

¶26

T.A. No. 1604 of 2022

¶27

Attorney, Confirmation Letter, Undertaking Letter/Declaration, Letter in favour of the applicant bank on 30.03.2017.

¶28

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 accounts as NPA on 01.10.2017 as per RBI guidelines and issued legal notice dated 30.07.2019 but the defendants neglected the same and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶29

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of Affidavit of Shri Vikash Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents General Power of Attorney, Sanction letter, Original Composite Hypothecation agreement, Power of Attorney for Collection of Bills Book debts and other receivables, Confirmation letter, Undertaking Letter Declaration, Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme for small industries, Letters, NPA Certificate, Legal notice, Postal receipts, Statement of account duly certified under Banker's Book of Evidence Act as Ex.AW1/1 to Ex.AW-1/18.

¶30

Notices of this O.A. were issued and defendants filed their written statement praying for dismissal of the application and submitted that the applicant bank has got the signature of the defendants on blank documents which have been converted into loan facilities, security documents does not bear necessary stamp duty, the authorized officer is not empowered to sign, verify and institute the suit, application is barred by the limitation, Interest has been charged at the exorbitant rate,

¶31

¶32

T.A. No. 1604 of 2022

¶33

bank failed to service any legal notice before filing the application and statement of account not certified under Bankers' Books of Evidence Act.

¶34

Heard and perused the pleadings. Apparently, defendants have raised the objection that the applicant bank has got signed blank documents while granting loan facilities to the defendants. This Tribunal has gone through the documents which are duly filled and executed by the defendants and this Tribunal is of the view that plea of blank documents is no plea in the eyes of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of "Indian Bank Vs. Cheese Wafers (India) Pvt. Ltd. It was held if the defendants have not filed any complaint before higher authorities of the bank or filed any complaint before police authorities ". Thus, the plea of blank documents is not maintainable after filing of the suit and the same is rejected.

¶35

The witness of the applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in this O.A. The evidence lead by the applicant bank which consists of mainly written / typed documents has gone unchallenged and there is no question of disbelieving the same based upon the documents.

¶36

The defendants have also challenged the statement of account of the bank but this Tribunal is of the view that statement of account is duly certified under Section 4 of the Bankers Books of Evidences Act and the same cannot be challenged unless specific entry is pointed by the defendants. Hence, the said objection is not maintainable and the same is hereby rejected.

¶37

¶38

T.A. No. 1604 of 2022

¶39

The witness of the applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in this O.A. The evidence lead by the applicant bank which consists of mainly written / typed documents has gone unchallenged and there is no question of disbelieving the same based upon the documents. This Tribunal has also observed that not an iota evidence has been led by the defendants against the claim of the applicant bank and has made only submission on fact as stated in the written statement evidence. That in the civil proceedings it is cardinal principle, that whosoever alleges a fact he/she has to prove in the court of law by leading evidence mere assertion are not sufficient and nowhere defendants have denied about the availment of the loan.

¶40

In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Tribunal is of the view that the defendants have failed to convince this Tribunal and this Tribunal do not find any merit and reject the contentions of the defendants as baseless. I hereby allow this O.A. as the applicant bank has proved its claim beyond reasonable doubt.

¶41

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

¶42

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which is analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, the contract between the parties comes to an end and the Court/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending

¶43

¶44

T.A. No. 1604 of 2022

¶45

upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Horrible Apex Court in the case of Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the circumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion that interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate 12% is awarded.

¶46

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

¶47

ORDER

¶48

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.51,83,002/- (Rupees Fifty One Lacs Eighty Three Thousand Two only) @12% interest per annum with monthly rests from 27.09.2019 till the date of realization with costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks and book debts, etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶49

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

¶50

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 08.12.2025.

¶51

¶52

T.A. No. 1604 of 2022

¶53

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

¶54

(GOVIND BALLABH SHAR A) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶55