Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Aadinath Plastics

DRT27 Oct 2025TA/620/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of Rs. 29,66,982/- earned under overdraft and term loans, directing the defendant to pay the principal sum plus future interest at 12% p.a. along with costs within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Order allowing application and directing payment of Rs. 29,66,982/- plus 12% per annum interest from 03.05.2023 and costs within 30 days.

Canara Bank versus M/S Aadinath Plastics — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

O.A. No. 620 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.620 of 2023

¶5

Canara Bank

¶6

(e-Syndicate Bank) Qutram Line Road, GTB Nagar Branch

¶7

Delhi-110009 Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Aadinath Plastics

¶10

Kh.No. 39/6, Front portion Bawana Road, Vill-Samaypur

¶11

Delhi-110042

¶12

Defendant

¶13

Present: Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Reserve: 07.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 27.10.2025

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

This original application has been filed by the applicant Lank before DRT-I, Delhi on 11.05.2023 through Shri Prem ¶liwas Chandan, authorized representative of the applicant ank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy ct, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of s.29,66,982/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Sixty Six Thousand me Hundred Eighty Two only) as on 02.05.2023 along with endentelite and future interest @13.5% per annum with nonthly rests along with penal interest @2% from 03.05.2023 ill the date of realization along with costs.

¶16

¶17

O.A. No. 620 of 2023

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that on the request of the dfendant through its proprietor Mr. Alok Jain vide loan application dated 08.06.216 along with PAN Card, Aadhar Card, aid form GST REG-06, the applicant bank sanctioned Secured Overdraft Facility for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Upcs only) on 15.06.2016 @11.40% interest per annum against hypothecation of stock and book debts in order to expand the n1anufacturing business of plastic granules, which was lastly rTnewed from time to time and enhanced to Rs.23.00 lacs @9.15% interest on 30.04.2022 covered under CGTMSE sheme. Further, the applicant bank sanctioned GECL Term Lan for Rs.2,90,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Ninety Thousand oHly) @7.50% interest per annum to be repayable in 36 EMIs Rs.8,056/- p.m. Further, on the request of the defendant, tOe applicant bank sanctioned fresh working Capital Term Loan under GECL (MSME) to Covid-19 affected customers for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Thousand only) s17.50% interest per annum.

¶19

In order to avail the aforesaid loan facilities, the c-^{efendant submitted loan applications and executed Composite} 1-ypothecation Agreement, Sanction Letters, Letters of ndertaking (NF-721), Particular of Hypothecated Stocks (NF 73), Cash Credit Agreement (NF-795), Pronote (NF 480),

¶20

Letter of Renewals (NF 493), Link Letter (NF 719), upplemental Agreement (NF 718), Particular of Guarantor, greement cum Deed of Hypothecation (NF-855) in favour of

¶21

t e applicant bank on various dates.

¶22

The defendant as proprietor executed Acknowledgement

¶23

f Debt and Security (NF 760) for the debt towards applicant

¶24

lank on 30.04.2022.

¶25

O.A. No. 620 of 2023

¶26

5 It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant failed to cimply with the terms and conditions of sanction and failed to rooNte their transactions through the account with the applicant bnk. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as N'A on 19.02.2023 as per RBI guidelines and issued a legal rltice dated 08.03.2023 but the defendant failed to regularize tl)e account. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this TObunal for recovery of their dues.

¶27

6f Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and d4spite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 26.03.2025, the d fendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared b fore the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and a idavit of assets have not been filed by the defendant.

¶28

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Prem Niwas Chandan, a thorized representative of the applicant bank, who have roved the documents Power of Attorney, Loan Application rm, PAN Card of Proprietor, Copy of Aadhar Card, Copy of frm GST, Sanction letters, Hypothecation Agreement, Letter (F ' • f Undertaking, Cash Credit Agreement, Pronote, Letter of enewal, Link Letter in Respect of Enhancement of Credit acilities, Supplemental Agreement, Particular of the uarantor, Particular of Hypothecated Stocks, Undertaking etter from Borrower, Legal Notice marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to x.AW-1/33.

¶29

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments ade in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the

¶30

¶31

O.A. No. 620 of 2023

¶32

apiplicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly approved.

¶33

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

¶34

11 The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and t ere is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant b nk and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond r asonable doubts.

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER

¶37

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the pplicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of s.29,66,982/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lacs Sixty Six Thousand ine Hundred Eighty Two only) as on 02.05.2023 together with endentelite and future interest ©12% per annum from 3.05.2023 till the date of realization and costs; failing which

¶38

O.A. No. 620 of 2023

¶39

t(le aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stock and book debts etc. In case of shortfall, tie same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶40

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent t the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi. (III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 26.12.2025.

¶41

( V) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be s ent to all concerned free of cost. Sd- (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶42

)ictated and pronounced in open court) ated: 27.10.2025

Canara Bank v. M/S Aadinath Plastics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Aadinath Plastics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus Smt Seema Rani

Canara Bank versus Sh. Sukhwant Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Ninder Singh

Anjali versus Uco Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S De Rigueur Apparels Private Limited

Ms Thakur Dass and Sons versus State Bank of India