Allowed

Central Bank of India v. M/S Modern Canvas India

DRT25 Nov 2025TA/3117/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an application under the Debt Recovery Act for recovery of Rs. 1.83 crores advanced as an overdraft against a mortgage property. The Presiding Officer awarded reduced interest at 12%, directed payment, and ordered issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Direct payment of principal Rs. 1,83,66,460/-, pending and future interest@12% p.a. from 23.08.2021, and costs within 30 days.

Central Bank of India versus M/S Modern Canvas India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 3117 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.3117 of 2022

¶5

entral Bank of India

¶6

honda Village, P.O. Maujpur

¶7

ain Road Maujpur District

ew Delhi-110053

Applicant

ersus

M/s Modern Canvas India

¶12

hrough its proprietor

¶13

rs. Nirupma Pandey w/o Sh.Sanjay Pandey

¶14

X/6052, 2nd Floor

¶15

uru Hari Krishna Gali

¶16

andhi Nagar, Delhi-110031

¶17

Mrs. Nirupma Pandey w/o Sh.Sanjay Pandey roprietress of Modern Canvas India

¶18

X/6052 2nd Floor

¶19

uru Hari Krishna Gali

¶20

andhi Nagar, Delhi-110031

¶21

Mr. Sanjay Pandey s/o Cheddi Lal Pandey /6052, 2nd floor

¶22

uru Hari Krishna Gali

¶23

andhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 Defendants

¶24

resent: Sh. Hemraj, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶25

Date of Reserve: 29.10.2025

¶26

Date of Pronouncement: 25.11.2025

¶27

FINAL ORDER

¶28

This original application has been filed by the applicant ank before DRT-III, Delhi on 16.09.2021 and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi, through Sh. Piyush Dewangan, authorized

¶29

5d-

¶30

T.A. No. 3117 of 2022

¶31

epresentative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of ecovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the efendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,83,66,460/- (Rupees ne Crore Eighty Three Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Four Hundred ixty only) as on 23.08.2021 @12.10% interest per annum with onthly rests from date of filing of this application till date of ea I ization.

¶32

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the efendant no.1 through defendant no.2 as proprietress, the pplicant bank sanctioned Overdraft limit of Rs.100.00 Lacs on 1.08.2012 under Centtrade scheme @13.5% rate of interest er annum against mortgage of property. The defendant no.3 tood as guarantor for the credit facilities availed by defendant 0.1.

¶33

In order to avail the loan facility, the defendants no.1 hrough its proprietress submitted loan application and xecuted Sanction Letter, Process Note, Demand Promissory ote, Letter of Waiver, Letter of Interest, On Demand Pronote, verdraft Agreement, Declaration, Undertaking, Consent lause of defendant no.2 and 3 on 04.06.2012 in favour of the pplicant bank. The defendant no.3 executed Guarantee greement for the credit facility sanctioned in favour of efendant no.1 by applicant bank.

¶34

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendants reated equitable mortgaged property of property being 2nd nd 3rd floor, IX/6052, Guru Hari Krishna Gali, Gandhi Nagar, elhi measuring 99 sq. yards owned by defendant no.3 in favour of applicant bank on 04.06.2012 by depositing security ocuments. The applicant bank got its charge over mortgaged roperty registered with CERSAI on 05.03.2013.

¶35

T.A. No. 3117 of 2022

¶36

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after vailing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to omply with the terms and conditions of sanction and were rregular in maintaining the account. Ultimately, the applicant ank classified the accounts as NPA on 29.05.2016 as per RBI uidelines but defendants failed to regularize the account. ence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for ecovery of their dues.

¶37

Notice under section 13(2) of the Securitization and econstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security nterest Act 2002 dated 06.06.2016 on the defendants. The pplicant bank issued possession notice dated 26.08.2016 was Iso issued and duly published in newspapers but defendants id not clear the dues. The security documents of mortgaged roperty was seized by CBI due to fraudulent transactions in he account of M/s Indigo Marketing being proprietorship of efendant no.3 as per Seizure Memo on 31.07.2014.

¶38

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and espite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to bsent from the proceedings. As per order dated 27.03.2025, t e defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not ppeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, vidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the efendants.

¶39

• • In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its vidence by way of Affidavit of Sh.Piyush Dewangan, uthorized representative of the applicant bank who has roved the documents Power of Attorney, Sanction letters,

¶40

T.A. No. 3117 of 2022

¶41

rocess note, Demand Promissory note, Letter of Waiver, etter of Interest, Demand Pro note, Overdraft agreement, eclaration, Undertaking, Consent Clauses, Guarantee greement, Recital of EM register, CERSAI Home, Notice u/s 3(2), Possession notice, Paper publication, Notice to produce ocument by CBI/E0-1/Delhi, Production cum Seizure memo, PA certificate, Statement of Account marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to x.AW-1/20.

¶42

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments ade in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the pplicant bank is based on the documents and the same have een duly approved.

¶43

As per the provision of Section 19(20) of the Recovery of ebts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 which analogous to Section 34 of CPC, on filing of the suit/claim, he contract between the parties comes to an end and the ourt/Tribunal has a discretion to award the same depending pon the circumstances of each case. Same principle has been id down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bank •f India Vs. Ravindra & Others. Taking stock of all the •ircumstances and keeping in view that there is a drastic fall in rates of interest globally and domestically, I am of the opinion t at interest of justice will be served if the interest at the rate •f 12% p.a. is awarded.

¶44

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 •eyond reasonable doubts.

¶45

cd-

¶46

T.A. No. 3117 of 2022

¶47

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

¶48

ORDER

¶49

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the pplicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, sum of Rs.1,83,66,460/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Three acs Sixty Six Thousand Four Hundred Sixty only) as on 3.08.2021 together with pendentelite and future interest 12% per annum from 23.08.2021 till the date of realization d costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be ecovered from the sale of mortgaged property being 2nd and d Floor, Property no.IX/6052, Guru Hari Krishna Gall, Gandhi agar, measuring 99 sq. yards owned by defendant no.3. In ase of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of ovable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶50