Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Reenak Footwear

DRT14 Jan 2025TA/1617/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of a loan of Rs. 11 lacs sanctioned to the defendant. The bank proved its case via documents, and the defendant remained absent. The Tribunal directed payment of the dues with interest and authorized recovery from hypothecated stock.

What did the court decide?

Directed the defendant to pay Rs. 12,38,890/- with interest within 30 days; authorized recovery from hypothecated stock and other properties via sale.

Canara Bank versus M/S Reenak Footwear — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.1617 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. 1617 of 2022
Canara Bank
Sector - 9, D.C.Chowk,
Rohini, Delhi-110085 Applicant
Versus
M/s Reenak Footwear Through its Proprietor Shri Ravi Kumar at: 239, lnder Enclave, Block B Phase I, Gali No.3, Nithari Village, Delhi-110086
Also at: H.No.162/D-14, Sector 7 Rohini, Delhi-110085 Defendant
Present: Shri Arun Shukla, Counsel for the applicant bank
Date of Institution: 13.03.2019
Date of Pronouncement: 14.01.2025
FINAL ORDER
This original application has been filed by the applicant
bank on 13.03.2019 before DRT-III, Delhi & then transferred to
DRT-I Delhi through Shri Hemant Kumar, authorized
representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of
Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Bankruptcy Act,1993
against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,38,890/-
(Rupees Twelve Lacs Thirty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety only) as on 31.01.2019 together with pendentelite and

¶4

5d-

¶5

T.A. No.1617 of 2022

¶6

future interest @9.85% per annum with monthly rest plus 2% penal interest from 01.02.2019 till its realization with costs.

¶7

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor, the applicant bank sanctioned Working Capital loan of Rs.11.00 Lacs (Rupees Eleven lacs only) @10.90% interest against hypothecation of stock of footwear under PMMY scheme on 02.08.2016 covered under CGTMSE scheme.

¶8

That in order to avail the loan facility, the defendant through its proprietor submitted loan application and executed Pronote NF-480, Letter of Proprietorship NF110, Certificate of Loan Papers NF-482, Deed of Hypothecation NF-720, Cash Credit Agreement NF-795, Request for Overdraft Facilities NF372 and Letter of Undertaking re: Loans / Advances NF-721 dated 31.08.2016 with the applicant bank.

¶9

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant failed to honor its commitments to make the interest inspite of repeated request and reminders as per sanction and failed to regularize the account. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 18.01.2018 and issued recall notice dated 28.03.2018 but defendant neglected. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶10

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 26.07.2024, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendant.

¶11

sa"

¶12

T.A. No.1617 of 2022

¶13

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Hemant Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has submitted the documents such as Power of Attorney Ex.AW1/1, Loan Application with Documents Ex.AW1/2, Sanction Letter Ex.AW1/2, Pronote Ex.AW1/3, Letter of Proprietorship Ex.AW1/4, Certificate of Loan Papers Ex.AW1/5, Deed of Hypothecation Ex.AW1/6, Cash Credit Agreement Ex.AW1/7, Request for Overdraft Ex.AW1/8, Letter of Undertaking Ex.AW1/9, Recall Notice Ex.AW-1/10, Statement of Account Ex.AW1/11.

¶14

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly proved.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.12,38,890/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs Thirty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety only) @11.85% interest per annum pendentelite from 01.02.2019 till the date of realization failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale

¶19

sct

¶20

T.A. No.1617 of 2022

¶21

of hypothecated stock. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant. (II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi. (Ill) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 17.03.2025. (IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost. 1^---'2-er)o-' (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI (Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 14.01.2025

Canara Bank v. M/S Reenak Footwear

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Reenak Footwear

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

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Hiteshi Enterprises

Central Bank of India versus M/S D.S. Impex

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S the Global Fashion Culture

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Raj Bala Bhardwaj

Central Bank of India versus Sh.Inderjeet Singh

Idfc First Bank Limited versus Patna Clinic and Diagnostic Centre