Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S R B Builders and Ors.

DRT9 Sept 2025TA/2895/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an original application by Canara Bank for recovery of dues totaling Rs.37,92,583.25 plus interest and costs against defendants who failed to respond. The court issued a recovery certificate based on uncontroverted documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.37,92,583.25 plus interest and costs within 30 days; recovery certificate to be issued to Recovery Officer.

Canara Bank versus M/S R B Builders and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 2895 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.2895 of 2022

¶5

Canara Bank

¶6

(e-Syndicate Bank) 4062-63, First Floor Naya Bazar, Dellhi-110006 Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

R.B.Builders Through its partners L-19/187, Sector-9, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP.

¶9

Sh.Manoj Chauhan s/o Sh.Davender Singh R/o L-19/187, Sector-9,

¶10

Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP.

¶11

Sh.Sanjeev Kumar s/o Sh.Prem Singh R/o H038, Ist Floor, Sector-12 Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad, UP Defendants

¶12

Present: Ms Vandana Bhatia, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶13

Date of Institution: 06.11.2019

¶14

Date of Pronouncement: 09.09.2025

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 06.11.2019 before DRT-III Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through its authorized representative under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993

¶17

¶18

¶19

T.A. No. 2895 of 2022

¶20

against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.37,92,583.25 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Ninety Two Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Three and paisa Twenty Five only) as on 31.08.2019 along with pendentelite and future interest @11.20% per annum plus @2% penal interest from the date of filing this application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 through its partners and guarantors being defendant no.2 & 3, the applicant bank sanctioned ODH Facility for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lacs only) on 25.03.2016 @11.20% rate of interest per annum against hypothecation of stock.

¶22

In order to avail the loan facility, the defendant no.1 through its partners being defendant no.2 and 3 submitted loan application dated 25.03.2016 and executed Sanction Letter, Composite Hypothecation Agreement (ASD-04), Guarantee Agreements and Partnership letter all dated 29.03.2016 with the applicant bank.

¶23

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, 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 01.05.2018 as per RBI guidelines and issued recall notices on 03.04.2018 and 02.05.2018 but defendants failed to regularize the account and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶24

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to

¶25

¶26

T.A. No. 2895 of 2022

¶27

absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 13.01.2025, 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 defendants.

¶28

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Tej Pal Singh (AW-1), authorized representative of the applicant bank, who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney Ex.AW-1/1, Loan Application Ex.AW-1/2, Sanction letter Ex.A-1/3, Composite Hypothecation Agreement Ex.AW-1/4, Guarantee Agreements Ex.AW-1/5 & Ex.AW-1/6, Partnership Deed Ex.AW-1/7, Certified Statement of Account under Banker's Books' Evidence Act Ex.AW-1/8(Colly) and Letters issued by bank dated 03.04.2018 and 02.05.2018 Ex.AW-1/9 (CoIly).

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

T.A. No. 2895 of 2022

¶34

ORDER

¶35

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.37,92,583.25 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Ninety Two Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Three and paisa Twenty Five only) as on 31.08.2019 together with pendentelite and future interest @11.20% per annum with monthly rests from date of filing this application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶36

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

¶37

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 07.11.2025.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 09.09.2025

¶41

Canara Bank v. M/S R B Builders and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S R B Builders and Ors.

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

Punjab National Bank versus Pns Exim Pvt. Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Hero Bricks

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) versus M/s Maa Enterpries

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta

Mr Kagganti Sathyanarayana Shetty Murali Alias K S Murali versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Sanjay Singh versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.