Allowed

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) v. M/S Jyoti Industries

DRT5 Apr 2025TA/1860/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of dues against M/s Jyoti Industries and its proprietor. As respondents were absent, the debtor was treated as defeated on documents, and the court directed payment of the principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed to pay Rs.93,65,925 with interest at 11.50% and costs; recovery via sale of assets if payment is not made within 30 days.

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus M/S Jyoti Industries — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.1860 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. 1860 of 2022

¶5

Canara Bank (e-Syndicate Bank) East Patel Nagar 7, Sethi Bhawan plicant Rajendra Place, New Delhi

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Jyoti Industries Through its Proprietor Mr. Surender Prasad Pandey 1/536 F, Street no.4 Friends Colony Industrial Area Delhi-110095

¶8

Also at: 129 A, Gali no.3, Gautam Gali Shamsham Bhumi, Jwala Nagar Shandara, Delhi-110032

¶9

Mr. Surender Prasad Pandey Proprietor of M/s Jyoti Industries 129 A, Gali no.3, Gautam Gali Shamshan Bhumi, Jwala Nagar Shandara, Delhi-110032

¶10

Also at: A-238, Jhilmil Colony Defendants Delhi-110095 Present: Ms Rekha Rustagi, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Institution: 16.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 05.34.2025

T.A. No.1860 of 2022

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank in DRT-III, Delhi on 16.03.2021 and then transferred to DRT-I through Sh. Rajiv Kumar Sethi, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.93,65,925/- (Rupees Ninety Three Lacs Sixty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Five only) as on 09.03.2021 along with pendentelite and future interest @11.5% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till the date of its realization and costs. Further, the name of Sh.Anoop Bisht was substituted as authorized representative in place of Sh. Rajiv Kumar Sethi, erstwhile AR for the applicant bank.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 through its proprietor being defendant no.2, the applicant bank sanctioned SODH Facility of Rs.85,C0,000/(Rupees Eighty Five Lacs only) on 16.05.2018 covered under CGTMSE Scheme @9.75% interest per annum against hypothecation of stocks and receivables and in default, agreed to pay @2% penal interest. The defendant no.2 stood as guarantor for the SODH loan facility sanctioned in favor of the Defendant no.1 by the applicant bank.

¶16

That in order to avail the credit facility, the defendants submitted loan application and executed Composite Hypothecation Agreement, Power of Attorney of Bills Books and other Receivables, Letter from Borrower confirming Power of 5d-

¶17

T.A. No.1860 of 2022

¶18

Attorney, Guarantee Agreement, Letter of Undertaking for Compliance of Post Release Terms and Conditions, Letter of Bank's Unconditional Right, Undertaking for Non-repayment of Unsecured Loans, Letter to cover Loan under CGSME Scheme, Authority Letter, Undertaking Letter/ Declaration, Undertaking for various Credit Facilities all dated 19.05.2018 in favour of the applicant bank.

¶19

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants hailed 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 28.06.2020 as per RBI guidelines due to non-adherence to financial discipline and applicant bank issued legal notice dated 17.07.2020 but neglected by the defendants. Hence, the applicant bank approached this tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶20

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and 5. despite proper service the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 27.06.2022, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶21

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Rajiv Kumar Sethi, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as General Power of Attorney Ex.AW1/1, Application for credit facilities Ex.AW-1/2, Sanction letter Ex.AW-1/3, Composite Hypothecation Agreement Ex„\W-1/4,

¶22

s-d

¶23

T.A. No.1860 of 2022

¶24

Power of Attorney of Bills Books and other Receivables Ex.AW1/5, Letter from Borrower Ex.AW-1/6, Guarantee Agreement Ex.AW-1/7, Letter of Undertaking AW-1/8, Letter Reg Bank's Unconditional Right to Stop/cancel Limits Ex.AW-1/9, Undertaking for Non-repayment of Unsecured Loans Ex.AW1/10, Letter to Cover Credit Facility under CGSME Scheme Ex.AW-1/11, Authority Letter Ex.AW-1/12, Undertaking Letter/ Declaration Ex.AW-1/13, Undertaking for Various Credit Facilities Ex.AW-1/14, NPA Certificate Ex.AW-1/15, Legal Notice dated 17.07.2020 Ex.AW-1/16, Postal receipts along with Track Reports Ex.AW-1/17(Colly), Certified Statement of Account under Banker's Books of Evidence Act Ex.AW-1/18 (Colly), Statement of Unapplied Interest Ex.AW-19, RC of Cars No.DL1RTB9943 & DL7CQ2191 Ex.AW-1/20 (Colly).

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

ORDER

¶29

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, sd

¶30

T.A. No.1860 of 2022

¶31

a sum of Rs.93,65,925/- (Rupees Ninety Three Lacs Sixty Five Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Five only) along with pendentelite and future interest @11.50% per annum from the date of filing this application till its realization with costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts and machinery etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶32

(II)^{The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent} to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Del;

¶33

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer,} DRT I, Delhi on 04.06.2025.

¶34

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

¶35

(GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶36

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 05.04.2025

¶37

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) v. M/S Jyoti Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) v. M/S Jyoti Industries

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 Limited versus Prabhat Yadav

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Om Trading

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) versus M/s Priya Fashion

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus M/S Sharma Enterprises

Bank of Baroda (E-Vijaya Bank) versus M/S Fox International Publication LLP

Bank of Baroda (E-Vijaya Bank) versus Mr. Ashok Kumar