Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S H M Fab

DRT26 Mar 2025TA/2784/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT-I Delhi allowed the bank's original application for recovery of outstanding dues of over Rs. 20 lakhs from the borrowers, who were absent from the proceedings. The court directed the defendants to pay the principal, interest, and penal charges within 30 days and issued a recovery certificate for execution against assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 20,03,112/- plus interest and penal charges within 30 days; recovery certificate issued.

Canara Bank versus M/S H M Fab — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.2784 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. 2784 of 2022

¶5

Canara Bank

¶6

SME Branch

¶7

A-53, Mangolpuri Industrial Park

¶8

Phase-2, Delhi-110034

¶9

Applicant

¶10

Versus

¶11

M/s H M Fab

¶12

R/o WZ 385, 1st Floor, Sri Nagar Shakur Basti, Delhi-110034

¶13

Also at:

¶14

WZ 313, 1st Floor, Shakurpur Village Near 4 Khamba, Delhi-110034

¶15

Manpreet Kaur

¶16

R/o WZ 385, 1st Floor, Sri Nagar Shakur Basti, Delhi-110034

¶17

Also at:

¶18

WZ 313, 1st Floor, Shakurpur Village Near 4 Khamba, Delhi-110034

¶19

Defendants

¶20

Present: Shri Anshuman Srivastava, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶21

Date of Institution: 04.06.2022

¶22

Date of Pronouncement: 26.03.2025

¶23

FINAL ORDER

¶24

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 04.06.2022 before DRT-III, Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi through Sh. Ankur Kumar Shah, authorized

¶25

T.A. No.2784 of 2022

¶26

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.20,03,112/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Three Thousand One Hundred Twelve only) as on 31.03.2022 together with pendentelite and future interest @9.15% per annum with monthly rests along with 2% penal interest from 01.04.2022 till the date of realization and costs.

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of defendants vide Loan Application Form dated 17.05.2018, the applicant bank sanctioned Open Cash Credit facility of Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lacs only) on 17.05.2018 @10% interest subject to change from time to time which was renewed on 17.08.2019 on the request of the defendants. The applicant bank sanctioned GECL loan of Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Eighty Thousand only) @9.25% interest as per RBI guidelines due to Covid-19 pandemic on 24.07.2020.

¶28

That in order to avail the loan facility, the defendants executed Cash Credit Agreement, Letter of Undertaking, Letter of Request for Overdraft facility, Agreement Re: Collateral Security, Pronote, Letter of Undertaking not to avail OCC Facility and Letter of Proprietorship all dated 17.05.2018 in favour of application bank. In addition to this, the defendants executed Offer Letter for GECL Facility, Agreement cum Deed of Hypothecation on 24.07.2020.

¶29

Then defendants acknowledged their debts on 17.08.2019 towards the applicant bank for Rs.14,19,182/-.

¶30

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to maintain

¶31

T.A. No.2784 of 2022

¶32

financial discipline, committed defaults in repayment of interest, penal interest and other charges as per banking norms. As the defendants failed to regularize the account despite notice & personal visits, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 30.03.2021 as per RBI guidelines and issued various notices and reminders but the defendants failed to regularize the account. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶33

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 02.12.2024, the defendants have 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 defendants.

¶34

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Ankur Kumar Shah, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Power of Attorney Ex.AW1/1, Loan Application Form Ex.AW1/2, Sanction Letter Ex.AW1/3, Cash Credit Agreement Ex.AW1/4, Letter of Undertaking Ex.AW1/5, Letter of Request for Overdraft Facility Ex.AW1/6, Agreement Re: Collateral Security Ex.AW1/7, Pronote Ex.AW1/8 & Ex.AW1/14, Letter of Undertaking not to avail OCC Facility Ex.AW1/9 & Ex.AW-1/15, Letter of Proprietorship Ex.AW1/10 and Ex.AW1/13, Renewal Letter Ex.AW1/11(Colly), Acknowledgement of Debt Ex.AW1/12, Offer letter for GECL Ex.AW1/16, Undertaking Letters Ex.AW1/17, Agreement cum Deed of Hypothecation Ex.AW1/18, Certificate u/s 2A Ex.AW1/19, Statement of Loan Accounts Ex.AW1/20(colly).

¶35

T.A. No.2784 of 2022

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

ORDER

¶40

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.20,03,112/- (Rupees Twenty lacs three Thousand One Hundred Twelve only) as on 31.03.2022 together with pendentelite and future interest @11.15% per annum with monthly rests from 01.04.2022 till the date of realization, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts and current assets etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶41

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

¶42

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 26.05.2025.

¶43

T.A. No.2784 of 2022

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 26.03.2025

Canara Bank v. M/S H M Fab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S H M Fab

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

Canara Bank versus M/S Everest Handmade Paper

Hdfc Bank versus Devendra Pratap Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Ravinder Singh

State Bank of India (E-State Bank of Hyderabad) versus Nitant Kumar

Icici Bank Limited versus Jaswant Singh

Bank of India versus Rakesh Kumar