Allowed

Canara Bank v. Bharat Kumar Gupta

DRT11 Sept 2025TA/347/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Canara Bank for recovery of dues from a borrower and guarantor who defaulted on a secured overdraft facility. Proceeding ex-parte, the Tribunal directed payment of outstanding amounts and future interest, with recovery enforceable through the sale of hypothecated and mortgaged assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to jointly and severally pay Rs.60,20,791/- plus 10.65% annual interest from 07.06.2018 and costs; recoverable from sale of mortgaged property.

Canara Bank versus Bharat Kumar Gupta — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 347 of 2023

¶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. 347 of 2023

¶5

Canara Bank

¶6

Bara Toot', Sadar Bazar,

¶7

Delhi-110006 Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Bharat Kumar Gupta s/o Sh. Gopal Gupta Proprietor of M/s Anjali Purse Zone 6080/117, 1st floor, Ward no.13

¶10

Bari Market, Qutab road

¶11

Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006

¶12

Also at:

¶13

J-9/54, Second floor

¶14

5/9 Block, Rajouri Garden

¶15

Delhi

¶16

Smt. Shail Gupta w/o Sh. Bharat Kumar Gupta (Guarantor/Mortgagor)

¶17

3-9/54, 2nd floor

¶18

5/9 Block, Rajouri Garden Delhi Defendants

¶19

Present: Sh. Ambuj Tiwari, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶20

Date of Institution: 07.06.2018

¶21

Date of Pronouncement: 11.09.2025

¶22

FINAL ORDER

¶23

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-III, Delhi on 07.06.2018 and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi, through Sh.Mukesh Kumar Soya!, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of

¶24

sci

¶25

T.A. No. 347 of 2023

¶26

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.60,20,791/- (Rupees Sixty Lacs Twenty Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety One only) alongwith future interest @10.65% per annum with monthly rests plus 2% penal interest from 07.06.2018 till the date of realization and costs.

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant no.1 being proprietor of M/s Anjali Purse Zone, the applicant bank sanctioned Secured Overdraft Facility of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lacs only) on 03.11.2015 @9.65% interest per annum with monthly rests against hypothecation of stocks, raw materials, goods in process etc., receivables and mortgage of property owned by defendant no.2 who stood as guarantor for the credit facility sanctioned in favour of the defendant no.1 by the applicant bank.

¶28

In order to avail the loan facility, the defendant no.1 as proprietor submitted loan application and executed various loan documents such as Request for Overdraft facility, Pronote, Cash Credit agreement, Letter of Undertaking and defendant no.2 executed Letter of Guarantee with the applicant bank on 03.11.2015.

¶29

In order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.1 hypothecated the stock in trade, raw materials, goods in process of manufacture, stores & spares, receivables etc. in favour of applicant bank on 03.11.2015.

¶30

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant no.2 created equitable mortgage of her property bearing no. 6080/117, 1St floor, Ward no.13, Bari market, Qutab road,

.5 -

T.A. No. 347 of 2023

Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 with the applicant bank on 02.11.2015 by depositing original Sale Deed dated 02.12.2009 duly registered with Sub-Registrar I, Delhi vide Document No.8117, Addl. Book No.1, Vol No.3110 pages 16 to 27.

¶35

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 were irregular in maintaining the account. Ultimately, the account of the applicant bank became NPA on 28.07.2017 as per RBI guidelines and issued recall notice dated 05.08.2017 but neglected by the defendants. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶36

Notice under section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 dated 11.09.2017 was issued to the defendants. The applicant bank issued Notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act and obtained possession orders on 02.02.2018 from the Hon'ble CMM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

¶37

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 08.05.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶38

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed various original documents such as Loan application, Request for Overdraft facility, Pronote, Cash Credit agreement, Letter of Undertaking, Guarantee Covering letter, Guarantee

¶39

¶40

T.A. No. 347 of 2023

¶41

Agreement, Letter evidencing Deposit of Title Deeds, Sale Deeds, Registered Letters, Recall Notice, Demand Notice dated 11.09.2017, Possession notice 03.03.2018 by Court receiver, Statement of Account, Statement of Interest, Penal Interest and other Charges marked as Page no.1 to 174.

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

ORDER

¶46

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.60,20,791/- (Rupees Sixty Lacs Twenty Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety One only) together with future interest @10.65% per annum from 07.06.2018 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, goods etc., receivables and mortgage property bearing no. 6080/117, 1st floor, Ward no.13, Bari Market, Qutab Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered

sd-

T.A. No. 347 of 2023

from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶51

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

¶52

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 10.11.2025.

¶53

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

¶54

o -)6 (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶55

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 11.09.2025

¶56

Canara Bank v. Bharat Kumar Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Bharat Kumar Gupta

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

Veerankutty versus Kerala Gramin Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Tanveer Ahmed

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Ezoom Mobility Private Limited

Birendra Kumar Singh versus Central Bank of India

Nazrul Islam and Ors. versus Bank of India

Smt Manju Shaw and Anr. versus Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited