Allowed

Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) v. M/S Shree Krishna Traders

DRT12 Mar 2025TA/412/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of Rs. 23,80,218.12 and interest against the defendants, who were absent and proceeded ex-parte, directing issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directs defendants to pay Rs. 23,80,218.12 as on 31.12.2018 with pendent lite and future interest @ 12.25% p.a. from 01.01.2019 and costs within 30 days. Recovery certificate to be issued for executio

Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) versus M/S Shree… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 412 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.412 of 2023

¶5

Canara Bank

¶6

(e-Syndicate Bank) B-2/11, Ashok Vihar Phase-II Delhi-110052

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Shree Krishna Traders Through its Proprietor

¶10

Sh. Sunil Kumar Jindal

¶11

Shop/Office at: 4/8, 2nd Floor Block 40, Singh Sabha Road Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007

¶12

Sh. Sunil Kumar Jindal s/o Sh. Puran Mal Jindal

¶13

Shop/Office at: 4/8, 2nd Floor Block 40, Singh Sabha Road Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007

¶14

Both also at:

¶15

Plot no.9-10, Gali no.4

¶16

Shalimar Village, Delhi-110088

¶17

Both also at:

¶18

Plot no.26/27, Ground Floor Near Kale Tel Wali Gali, Village Badli Delhi-110042

¶19

Both also at:

¶20

House no.39/6, 2nd Floor Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007

¶21

Both also at:

¶22

E-957, Saraswati Vihar New Delhi-110034

¶23

Defendants

¶24

T.A. No. 412 of 2023

¶25

Present: Sh.Sandeep Tyagi, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶26

Date of Institution: 28.02.2019

¶27

Date of Pronouncement: 12.03.2025

¶28

FINAL ORDER

¶29

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-III, Delhi and then transferred to DRT-I Delhi on 28.02.2019 through Sh.Kulwant Singh Patel, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 aga:nst the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.23,80,218.12 (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Eighty Thousand Two Hundred Eighteen and Paisa Twelve only) as on 31.12.2018 along with pendentelite and future interest @12.25% per annum till the date of realization along with costs.

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the Defendant no.1 through Defendant no.2 vide application dated 05.11.2014, the applicant bank sanctioned Term loan-other secured loan facility for a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs only) under CGTMSE scheme on 20.11.2014 at @12.25% rate of interest with monthly rests for purchasing plant & machinery against hypothecation of machinery, stocks, plants and machinery purchased out of loan sanctioned in favour of defendant no.1.

¶31

In order to avail the loan facility, the defendant submitted Loan Application Form dated 05.11.2014 along with related documents i.e. KYC documents, quotations etc. and executed Composite Hypothecation Agreement (ASD-4), Receipts /

¶32

T.A. No. 412 of 2023

¶33

D.P.Note, Power of Attorney for Collection of Bills, Book Debts and other Receivables, Confirmation of Delivery of Martinery/ Vehicles, Declaration (ADV-23) all dated 21.11.2014 as well as Receipts / DP Note dated 23.01.2015 in favour of the applicant bank. The defendant also executed Confirmation of Delivery of Machinery/Vehicle on 14.04.2015 and Declaration (ADV-23) dated 05.05.2015 in favour of applicant bank.

¶34

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 sanction and failed to repay the interest and installments for regularization of the account with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 29.02.2016 as per RBI guidelines and issued legal notice dated 24.05.2018 but the defendant neglected the same and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶35

The defendant no.2 acknowledged and confirm the outstanding on 27.04.2015, 15.05.2017 and 14.08.2017 towards the applicant bank.

¶36

It has been submitted that the Defendant no.2 mischievously played fraud upon the applicant bank, o?ened a Current Account in the name of M/s Speedway Machines with the Karnataka Bank, G.T.Karnal Road and got encashed two DDs of Rs.11,00,000/- each on 11.12.2014 and 27.01.2015 issued by the applicant bank for purchase of machinery. The applicant bank lodged FIR with Police Authorities under Section 420, 468, 471 IPC on 21.08.2017.

¶37

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

¶38

T.A. No. 412 of 2023

¶39

absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 08.01.2020, 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 defendants.

¶40

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Kuiwant Singh Patel, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents as Loan Application with KYC Documents etc. Ex.AW-1/1(Colly), Sanction Letter Ex.AW-1/21 Composite Hypothecation Agreement (ASD-4) Ex.AW-1/3, Receipts/DP Note Ex.AW-1/4, Power of Attorney Ex..\W-1/5, Confirmation of Delivery of Machinery/Vehicles Ex.AW-1/6, Receipts/DP Note dated 23.01.2015 Ex.AW-1/7, Confirmation of Delivery of Machinery/Vehicles Ex.AW-1/8, Declaration (ADV-23) dated 05.05.2015 EX.AW-1/9, Acknowledgement of Debt Ex.AW-1/10, OTS Letter Ex.AW-1/11, Various Letters Ex.AW-1/12 & AW-1/13, Copy of FIR Ex.AW-1/14, Legal Notice along with Receipts of Registration Ex.AW-1/1F(Colly), Certified Statement of Account under Banker's Book Evidence Act Ex.AW-1/16 (Colly), Computation Sheet Ex.AW-1/17, General Power of Attorney Ex.AW-1/18.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

T.A. No. 412 of 2023

¶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.23,80,218.12 (Rupees Twenty Three Lac - , Eighty Thousand Two Hundred Eighteen and Paisa Twelve only) as on 31.12.2018 together with pendentelite and future interest @12.25% per annum from 01.01.2019 till the date of realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts, machinery etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶47

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

¶48

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 12.05.2025.

¶49

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

¶50

¶51

(GOVIND BALLABHS1114RMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶52

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 12.03.2025

Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) v. M/S Shree Krishna Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) v. M/S Shree Krishna Traders

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

Rathi Agencies versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Mangal Singh

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Dalbir Singh (Since Deceased through Lrs)

Beena versus Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Sarju Shamsudeen versus Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

Mr S Padmanabha Rao and Other versus Sir M Visvesvaraya Co. Operative Bank Ltd.