Allowed

Canara Bank v. Jitender Yadav

DRT28 Aug 2025TA/378/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an ex parte application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of dues amounting to Rs. 31,56,875.96 along with interest from defendant Jitender Yadav, who failed to appear, directing issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to pay the claimed sum of Rs. 31,56,875.96 along with interest within 30 days and issuing a recovery certificate for enforcement.

Canara Bank versus Jitender Yadav — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 378 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.378 of 2023

¶5

Canara bank erstwhile Syndicate bank A-257, Derewal Nagar

¶6

G.T. Karnal Road Azadpur, Delhi-110009

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Jitender Yadav S/o Sh. Ramu Yadav 53, Khilona bagh Model town, Mukherjee nagar North west, Delhi-110009

¶10

Also at:

¶11

Taxi stand near Arya Bhatt Poletechnic college

¶12

G.T Karnal road, Delhi

¶13

Defendants

¶14

Present: Ms. Pooja Sisodiya, Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank

¶15

Date of Institution: 22.09.2021

¶16

Date of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 22.09.2021 before DRT-III, Delhi, and then 54

¶19

T.A. No. 378 of 2023

¶20

transferred to DRT-I, Delhi, through its authorized representative under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.31,56,875.96/^{-(Rupees Thirty One} Lacs Fifty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Five And Ninety Six Paisa Only) along with pendentelite and future interest ©8.85% per annum and a sum of Rs. 5,44,236/^{-(Rupees Five} Lacs Forty Four Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Six only) along with pendentelite and future interest @7.50% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the defendant and vide his loan application dated 20.02.2017, the applicant bank sanctioned vehicle loan Facility of Rs.41,65,000/ -^{(Rupees Forty One Lacs Sixty Five Thousand} Only) on 07.03.2017 with interest rate @10.25% per annum, against hypothecation of vehicle, which was repayable in 84 Equated Monthly Installments of. Further, on the request of the defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned GICL loan facility of Rs.4,50,000/ -^{(Rupees Four Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) on} 25.08.2020 with interest rate @7.50% per annum, which was to be repayable in 36 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.13,998/- each.

¶22

In order to avail the loan facility, the defendants submitted Loan application, Deed of hypothecation and Irrevocable power of attorney duly executed by the Respondents in favour of the Applicant bank, True Copy of money receipt, Composite Hypothecation Agreement, Confirmation of delivery of machinery/vehicles,

¶23

T.A. No. 378 of 2023

¶24

Acknowledgement of Debt & Security, Undertaking Letter in favour of the applicant bank.

¶25

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant 4. hypothecated vehicle no. DL1PD2788 and DL1PD2814 with the applicant bank.

¶26

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of sanctioned loan. Therefore the account of the defendant became irregular and the same was declared NPA on 30.03.2021. Thereafter, the applicant bank issued legal notice dated 21.08.2021 which was neglected by the defendant. Hence, the applicant bank approached this tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶27

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and 6. despite proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 09.09.2024, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as he has not appeared before the Tribunal .

¶28

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Amartya Pal, as authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as General Power of Attorney, True Copy of Loan application, True copy of Sanction letter, Stamped money receipt, Composite Hypothecation agreement, Acknowledgement of Debt and Security dated 14.08.2020, Undertaking letter, Take Delivery letter, Disbursement

¶29

T.A. No. 378 of 2023

¶30

Request, Legal notice, Certificate undersection 2A as exhibit AW-1/1 to AW-1/19.

¶31

Defendant executed Acknowledgement of Debt dated 8. 14.08.2020 with the applicant bank.

¶32

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments 9. 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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

ORDER

¶36

I, allow this TA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.31,56,875.96/-^{(Rupees Thirty One Lacs Fifty Six Thousand} Eight Hundred Seventy Five and Paisa Ninety Six only) together with pendentelite and future interest ©8.85% per annum with monthly rests and a sum of Rs.5,44,236/-(Rupees Five Lacs Forty Four Thousand Two Hundred And Thirty Six Only) together with pendentelite and future interest ©7.50% per

¶37

T.A. No. 378 of 2023

¶38

annum with monthly rests from date of filing this application till the date of realization and costs; failing which the amount shall be recovered from sale of hypothecated vehicle no. DL1PD2788 and DL1PD2814. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶39

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

¶40

(III)^{Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery} Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 31.10.2025.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 28.08.2025

Canara Bank v. Jitender Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Jitender Yadav

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

Manoj Cm versus Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Maninderjeet Kaur

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Dharmender

Andhra Bank versus Ms Ally India Products

Idfc First Bank Limited versus Sanjeev Kumar Gupta

Hdfc Bank versus Ajay Sharma