Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S M.S. Industries

DRT6 Aug 2025TA/2809/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The debtor-recovery tribunal allowed the original application filed by Canara Bank against M/S M.S. Industries and Mr. Radhubhir Singh for recovery of outstanding loan dues of approximately Rs. 42,02,114/- upon an ex-parte proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay Rs.42,02,114/- plus expenses and future interest at specified rates; recovery via sale of hypothecated and other properties.

Canara Bank versus M/S M.S. Industries — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 2809 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.2809 of 2022

Canara Bank

177, Saini Enclave,

Karkardooma,

New Delhi- 110092

Applicant

Versus

M/S M.S. Industries,

¶12

(Through its Prop. Mr. Radhubhir Singh) A-1/40, First Floor, DSIDC Flatted Factory, Jhilmil Industrial Area, New Delhi- 110095

¶13

Also at:

¶14

B 2/6, Ground Floor, Jhilmil Industrial Area, New Delhi- 110095

¶15

Mr. Radhubhir Singh

¶16

S/o Sh. Trilochan Singh

¶17

House No. 11/3 B, First Floor,

¶18

Gali No. 2, Old Govindpuri Extension, New Delhi- 110051

¶19

Also at:

¶20

Flat No.- K 1403, K World Srishti, NH-58, Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad- 201017 Defendants

¶21

Present: Shri Subodh Kr. Singh, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶22

Date of Institution: 14.06.2022

¶23

T.A. No. 2809 of 2022

¶24

Date of Pronouncement: 06.08.2025

¶25

FINAL ORDER

¶26

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 14.06.2022 before DRT-II, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I, Delhi through Smt. Upasana Gaur, 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.42,02,114/- (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Two Thousand One hundred Fourteen Only) as on 30.04.2022 {Rs.21,32,596/- outstanding as on 30.04.2022 along with expenses, pendente lite and future interest @8.70% per annum with monthly rests in OCC Loan Account No. 3333261000034; Rs.1,42,827/- outstanding as on 30.04.2022 along with expenses, pendente lite and future interest @8.70% per annum with monthly rests in CIFITL Loan Account No. 3333710000008; Rs.3,08,437/- outstanding as on 30.04.2022 along with expenses, pendente lite and future interest @14.30% per annum with monthly rests in CIFITL Loan Account No. 3333747000004; Rs.4,34,471/- outstanding as on 30.04.2022 along with expenses, pendente lite and future interest ©7.90% per annum with monthly rests in GECL Loan Account No. 3333755000019; Rs.11,34,427/- outstanding as on 30.04.2022 along with expenses, pendente lite and future interest @14.95% per annum with monthly rests in GECL Loan Account No. 3333766000025 and Rs.49,356/- outstanding as on 30.04.2022 along with expenses, pendent lite and future interest @14.30% per annum with monthly rests in Term Loan Account No. 173000128097} from date of filing of this application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶27

¶28

T.A. No. 2809 of 2022

¶29

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant No. 2 as a proprietor of defendant no. 1 vide loan application dated 29.09.2014, the applicant bank sanctioned OCC/ SME Limit of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs Only) which was later enhanced to Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs Only) ©8.7% interest vide sanction letter dated 11.01.2016. The loan facilities were later renewed on 09.04.2018 and 30.07.2020. Defendant no.2 again approached the applicant bank for grant of Term Loan Facility of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs Only) under CGTMSE Scheme @14.95% interest which was repayable in 83 equal monthly installments of Rs.24,788/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty Eight Only) each which was disbursed to defendant no. 1 vide sanction letter dated 23.11.2017. Additionally, another loan of Rs.4,00,000/(Rupees Four Lacs Only) ©7.9% interest was sanctioned under GECL Facility vide sanction letter dated 22.06.2020 which was later converted into CFITL Facility @8.7% interest on 01.09.2020. Further bank restructured the pending interest to Rs.2,84,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Only) into FITL and charged interest ©14.35% per annum which was repayable in a period of 36 months. Applicant bank further sanctioned a Term Loan of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) ©14.30% interest which was payable in a period of 36 months vide sanction letter 10.09.2021, all of which was requested by the defendants against hypothecation of plant, machinery and stocks/ assets.

¶30

That in order to avail the loan facilities, the defendants signed and executed various documents such as Authority Letter, Loan and Security Documents dated 29.09.2014,

¶31

T.A. No. 2809 of 2022

¶32

Sanction Letter dated 11.01.2016, Letter of Renewal, Sanction Memorandum, NF 482 dated 09.04.2018, Notice and Postal Receipts dated 06.05.2022, Statement of Accounts and Certificate Under Section 2A of The Bankers Books Evidence Act.

¶33

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 23.02.2022 as per RBI guidelines and loan recall notice dated 06.05.2022 was issued but defendant have failed to comply with the notice, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶34

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite of proper service through publication in newspaper, the defendant has chosen to remain absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 15.05.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶35

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Smt. Upasana Gaur, as authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the Original/Copy documents of Authority Letter, Loan and Security Documents, Sanction Letter, Letter of Renewal, Sanction Memorandum, NF 482, Notice and Postal Receipts, Statement of Accounts and Certificate Under Section 2A of

¶36

se-

¶37

¶38

T.A. No. 2809 of 2022

¶39

The Bankers Books Evidence Act as EX AW-1/1 to EX AW1/12.

¶40

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 approved.

¶41

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 upon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble 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 of 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

ORDER

¶45

T.A. No. 2809 of 2022

¶46

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.42,02,114/- (Rupees Forty Two Lacs Two Thousand One hundred and Fourteen Only) as on 30.04.2022 {Rs.21,32,596/outstanding as on 30.04.2022 along with expenses, pendente lite and future interest @8.70% per annum with monthly rests in OCC Loan Account No. 3333261000034; Rs.1,42,827/outstanding as on 30.04.2022 along with expenses, pendente lite and future interest @8.70% per annum with monthly rests in CIFITL Loan Account No. 3333710000008; Rs.3,08,437/outstanding as on 30.04.2022 along with expenses, pendente lite and future interest @12% per annum with monthly rests in CIFITL Loan Account No. 3333747000004; Rs.4,34,471/outstanding as on 30.04.2022 along with expenses, pendente lite and future interest @7.90% per annum with monthly rests in GECL Loan Account No. 3333755000019; Rs.11,34,427/outstanding as on 30.04.2022 along with expenses, pendente lite and future interest ©12% per annum with monthly rests in GECL Loan Account No. 3333766000025 and Rs.49,356/outstanding as on 30.04.2022 along with expenses, pendente lite and future interest @12% per annum with monthly rests in Term Loan Account No. 173000128097} from date of filing of this application till the date of realization along with costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated plants, machinery and stocks. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶47

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

¶48

sd_

¶49

T.A. No. 2809 of 2022

¶50

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 13.10.2025.

¶51

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

¶52

S'd - (GOVIND BALLAEta WAcMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶53

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 06.08.2025

Canara Bank v. M/S M.S. Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S M.S. Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus M/S Regan Engg Solutions

Punjab National Bank versus Jokhan Singh and Others

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Jyotsna Kisan Seva Kendra and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Sandeep Thapa

Ms Shastri Agarbatties Private Limited versus Tata Capital Limited

Union Bank of India versus Sri Anjan Kr Halder Prop of M/s Tarokeswar Enterprise