Allowed

Canara Bank v. Anmol Khanna

DRT12 Dec 2025TA/3235/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application by a bank for recovery ofRs.92.97 lakhs owed by borrowers who failed to regularize a loan account. The bank proved its case through documentary evidence, and the defendants were absent from the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay Rs.92,97,730.22 with interest and costs within 30 days; order for recovery via sale of assets in case of default.

Canara Bank versus Anmol Khanna — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. NO. 3235 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.3235 of 2022

¶5

Canara Bank

¶6

ARM-II Branch 3038, A-27, First Floor Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Anmol Khanna

¶10

Proprietor M/s Sonal Enterprises 5-Main Road, Rashid Market Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110031

¶11

Also at:

¶12

Sh. Anmol Khanna

¶13

IX-5892, 2nd Floor, Geeta Gali, Dharampura, Gandhi Nagar, Seelampur Ilaqua Shandara, Delhi-110031

¶14

Smt. Rajni Khanna w/o Sh. Satish Khanna 5, Ganesh Park, Rashid Market Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110031

¶15

Also at:

¶16

Smt. Rajni Khanna w/o Sh. Satish Khanna IX-5892, Third Floor, Geeta Gali, Dharam Pura, Gandhi Nagar, Seelampur Ilaqua Shandara, Delhi-110031 Defendants

¶17

Present: Shri Navendu Upadhyay, Counsel for applicant bank

¶18

Date of Reserve: 28.11.2025

¶19

Date of Pronouncement: 12.12.2025

¶20

T.A. NO. 3235 of 2022

¶21

FINAL ORDER

¶22

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-III, Delhi on 27.10.2017 and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through Shri Kanwaljit Singh, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.92,97,730.22 (Rupees Ninety Two Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty and paisa Twenty Two only) along with pendentelite and future interest @11.70% per annum with monthly rests along with penal interest @2% from the date of filing this application till the date of realization along with costs.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 being proprietor of M/s Sonal Enterprises, the applicant bank sanctioned Open Cash Credit limit for a sum of Rs.65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Lacs only) on 04.03.2015 against hypothecation of machinery and mortgage of property owned by defendant no.2 who stood as guarantor for the credit facilities sanctioned in favour of the defendant no.1 by the applicant bank.

¶24

In order to avail the loan facility, the defendant no.1 as proprietor of M/s Sonal Enterprises submitted loan application and executed Request for overdraft facilities, Letter of Undertaking, Cash Credit Agreement, Pronote, Agreement cum Deed of Hypothecation on 04.03.2015. The defendant no.2 executed Guarantee Covering Letter and Guarantee Agreement in favour of the applicant bank on 04.03.2015.

¶25

sd-

¶26

T.A. NO. 3235 of 2022

¶27

In order to secure the credit facility, the defendants hypothecated the machinery, Vehicle and created equitable mortgage of property bearing no.IX-5892 out of Khasra no.111, Second Floor (upto ceiling level), admeasuring 125 sq. yards alongwith common rights in stairs, passage & entrance and proportionate share in land underneath situated at abadi of Geeta Gali, Dharampura, Gandhi Nagar, Seelampur, Ilaqa Shandara, Delhi-110031 on 04.03.2015 by depositing sale deed dated 05.02.2015 along with chain of documents in favour of applicant bank as collateral security.

¶28

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 route their transactions through the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 04.07.2017 as per RBI guidelines and issued loan recall notice dated 31.07.2017 but defendants failed to regularize the account. Hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶29

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 01.03.2019 and 15.07.2025, the defendant no.1 & 2 have been proceeded ex-parte respectively, as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendants.

¶30

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed various documents such as Power of Attorney of Authorized Representative, Request for Overdraft Facilities, Letter of Undertaking, Cash Credit Agreement, Pronote, Agreement cum

¶31

T.A. NO. 3235 of 2022

¶32

Deed of Hypothecation, Original Deed of Hypothecation Re: Machinery, Agreement Re: Collateral Security Vehicle, Guarantee Covering Letter, Guarantee Agreement, Letter Evidencing Deposit of Title Deeds, Copy of Sale Deed dated 05.02.2015, Sanction Letter, Recall Notice, Demand Notice, Statement of Account duly certified under Bankers Books Evidence Act marked as Annexure A-1 to A-17 from page no.1 to 162.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER

¶37

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.92,97,730.22 (Rupees Ninety Two Lacs Ninety Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty & paisa Twenty Two only) together with pendentelite and future interest @11.70%

¶38

per annum from the date of filing this application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount

¶39

T.A. NO. 3235 of 2022

¶40

shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, machinery and mortgaged property i.e. Second Floor (upto ceiling level) of property bearing no.IX-5892, out of Khasra no.111, admeasuring 125 sq. yards alongwith common rights in stairs, passage & entrance and proportionate share in land underneath, situated at abadi of Geeta Gali, Dharampura, Gandhi Nagar, Seelampur, Ilaqua Shandara, Delhi-110031. 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 10.02.2026

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 12.12.2025

Canara Bank v. Anmol Khanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Anmol Khanna

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

M/s Parin International versus Idbi Bank Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Sh Balwinder Singh

Canara Bank versus Sh. Balraj Singh

Amit Das versus Icici Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Radish Trading Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S Sarita Traders