Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mr. Bhanu Tiwari

DRT29 Dec 2025TA/697/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the recovery application filed by Canara Bank against three defendants who failed to repay sanctioned SID and vehicle loan facilities, directing payment of principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay Rs.39,55,577.24 plus pendentelite and future interest within 30 days, failing which the amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts, car, and

Canara Bank versus Mr. Bhanu Tiwari — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No. 697 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.697 of 2022

¶5

Canara Bank

¶6

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

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mr. Bhanu Tiwari s/o Late G.N. Tiwari Proprietor of Mahadev Oil & Hardware R/o C 5-111, Bock-C, Pkt-5

¶10

Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi-110085

¶11

Mr. Ranjeet Singh s/o Mr. Had Singh R/o B-9/69, Sector-3

¶12

Rohini, New Delhi-110085

¶13

Mr.Mercian Daniel s/o Nisthagiri Awasthi R/o Flat no.201, Plot no.633 Gaiddullajab, Saket New Delhi-110030

¶14

Defendants

¶15

Present: Sh. Anshuman Srivastava, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶16

Date of Reserve: 15.12.2025

¶17

Date of Pronouncement: 29.12.2025

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank before DRT-III Delhi on 05.08.2022 and then transferred to DRT-I under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.39,55,577.24 (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Fifty Five Thousand

¶20

¶21

T.A. No. 697 of 2022

¶22

Five Hundred Seventy Seven and paisa Twenty Four only) as on 06.07.2022 along with pendentelite and future interest @9.95% with monthly rests per annum for SOD facility and @8% with monthly rests for car loan plus @2% penal interest from 06.07.2022 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 as proprietor of M/s Mahadev Oil & Hardware, the applicant bank sanctioned SOD facility for Rs.25,00,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Lacs only) which was renewed from to time lastly on 23.02.2016 and enhanced to Rs.30.00 lacs @9.95% interest per annum on 22.03.2018. on the request of defendant no.1 and 3, the applicant bank sanctioned Vehicle loan for Rs.8,50,000/- on 16.04.2018 under Synd VAHAN Scheme @9.20% per annum with monthly rests to be repayable in 72 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.15,477/each. The defendant no.2 & 3 stood as guarantors for the loan facilities sanctioned by applicant bank favoring defendant no.1.

¶24

That in order to avail both the loan facilities, the defendants submitted loan applications and executed Power of Attorney, Letter of Undertaking, Undertaking, Letter of Proprietorship, ADV23, Composite Hypothecation Agreement ASD4, Guarantee Agreement ASD6, Renewal Letters, Authorization Letters, ASD10, Particulars of Assets of defendant 1 & 2, Annexure 9 on 26.08.2013, 23.02.2016 & 22.03.2018. The defendant no.1 & 3 executed Payment Acknowledgement Receipt, Authorization Letter, ASD4, ASD6, ADV13 and Letter of Advances on Hypothecation of Vehicle along with Form 29 & 30 dated 16.04.2018.

sd-

T.A. No. 697 of 2022

In order to secure the loan facilities, the defendant no.1 hypothecated stock, book debts and created equitable mortgage of his property bearing no.C-5111, Entire 2nd & 3^rd Floor with roof rights), Block-C, Pkt-5, Sector-11, Rohini, New Delhi-110085 towards applicant bank on 26.08.2013. The defendant no.1 hypothecated the car namely ERTIGA VXI CNG Silver Silky in favour of applicant bank.

¶29

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 failed to regularize the accounts with the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the Overdraft account as NPA on 30.06.2022 and car loan account on 24.05.2022 as per RBI guidelines and issued legal notice dated 25.07.2022 but the defendants failed to regularize the accounts and hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶30

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 23.07.2025, 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.

¶31

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Raj Kumar Bansal, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents Power of Attorney, Amalgamation notification, Application for renewal of loan, Sanction Su-

¶32

¶33

T.A. No. 697 of 2022

¶34

acknowledgement letter, Letter of Undertaking, Letter of Proprietorship, Letter of ADV 23, Composite hyoothecation agreement, Guarantee agreement, Letter confirmation of creation of second/subsequent equitable mortgage, Renewal letters, Power of Attorney for collection of bills, Particular of assets, Application form for car loans, Legal notice dated 25.07.2022, Certificate under Banker's Books Evidence Act, Calculation sheet and Statement of Accounts marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/42 (Colly).

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

ORDER

¶39

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of Rs.39,55,577.24 (Rupees Thirty Nine Lacs Fifty Five Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven and paisa Twenty Four only) together with pendentelite and future interest ©10.50% (in the absence of individual ledger outstanding) from 06.07.2022 till the date of realization and costs; failing which

¶40

¶41

T.A. No. 697 of 2022

¶42

the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks, book debts, ERTIGA VXI CNG Silver Silky Car and mortgaged property being no. C-5111, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Block-C I Pkt-5, Sector-11, Rohini, New Delhi-110085 owned by defendant no.l. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶43

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

¶44

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 27.02.2026.

¶45

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

¶46

5d -

¶47

(GOVIND BALLABHSHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶48

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 29.12.2025

¶49

Canara Bank v. Mr. Bhanu Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Mr. Bhanu Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Natthuji Chavhan versus Arvind Sahakari Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Pristine Facility and Management Services Pvt. Lts

Rare Asset Reconstruction Private Limited versus Ms Narayana Processed Food Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Pradeep Kumar

Central Bank of India versus Dinesh Chand Alias Dinesh Kumar

Bank of India versus Komal Sharma