Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Radha Krishan Chole Bhature

DRT16 Sept 2025TA/935/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applications of Canara Bank seeking recovery of dues from the defendant proprietorship, which failed to pay back a sanctioned term loan used for business assets.

What did the court decide?

Deferred payment of Rs. 21,53,616.75 plus interest within 30 days; recovery from sale of hypothecated assets for any shortfall; issuance of recovery certificate.

Canara Bank versus M/S Radha Krishan Chole Bhature — Corruption | DRT (2025)

¶1

T.A. No.935 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. 935 of 2022

¶5

Canara Bank

¶6

(e-Syndicate Bank) 1371, Near Bata Showroom Kashmiri Gate, Delhi-110006 Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Radha Krishna Chole Bhature Proprietor — Mrs. Sampa w/o Ashok Kumar E-67, 2nd Floor, South Anarkali Delhi-110051

¶9

Also at:

¶10

Mrs. Sampa w/o Ashok Kumar 424, Jagriti Enclave Delhi-110092 Defendant

¶11

Present: Mr. Navin K Thakur, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶12

Date of Institution: 26.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 16.09.2025

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 26.08.2021 through Shri Anand Kumar Jaiswal, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.21,53,616.75 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Fifty Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixteen & paisa Seventy Five only) as on 31.07.2021 along with pendentelite and future interest

¶15

¶16

T.A. No.935 of 2022

¶17

@11.00% per annum from 01.08.2021 till the date of realization and costs. Further, the name of Shri Ayush Sharma was substituted as Authorized Representative in place of Shri Anand Kumar Jaiswal, erstwhile AR for the applicant bank

¶18

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant being sole proprietorship concern of Mrs.Sampa vide loan application dated 19.09.2016, the applicant bank sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.20.00 lacs (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) on 28.09.2016 @11.05% interest per annum against hypothecation of Chimni/Bhatti/Furniture, crockery etc. being procured from term loan proceeds covered under CGTSME scheme to be repayable in 60 EMIs of Rs.43,535/- p.m. from November 2016.

¶19

That in order to avail the said loan facility, the defendant submitted Application Form dated 19.09.2016 with KYC documents and Letter of Sanction, Letter of Proprietorship, Composite Hypothecation Agreement, Receipt OG-28A & Request Letters, Letters of Undertaking, Copy of Stock etc. on 04.10.2016.

¶20

That in order to secure the loan facility, the defendant hypothecated the fixed/movables assets procured from bank finance in favour of application bank.

¶21

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 and despite of several requests and reminders the defendant failed to pay the outstanding dues in time to the applicant bank. Ultimately, the applicant bank calling upon the defendant to pay the entire outstanding dues to the applicant bank and classified the

¶22

T.A. No.935 of 2022

¶23

account as NPA on 28.12.2018 and issued legal demand notice dated 14.06.2019 but there was no response from the defendant hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶24

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 15.05.2025, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets has been filed by the defendant.

¶25

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Ayush Sharma, authorized representative of the applicant bank who have proved the documents as Gazette Notification Ex.AW-1/1, Authority Letter Ex.AW-1/2(0SR)„ Application Form & Assets and Liability Ex.AW-1/3(Colly), Sanction Letter Ex.AW-1/4, Letter of Proprietorship Ex.AW-1/5, Composite Hypothecation Agreement Ex.AW-1/6„ Letter of Undertaking Ex.AW-1/7, Undertakings Ex.AW-1/8 to Ex.AW-1/11, Stock Value Ex.AW1/12, Receipts Ex.AW-1/13 to 14, Request Letter Ex.AW-1/15, Legal Notice Ex.AW-1/16, Certified Statement of Account under Banker's Evidence Act Ex.AW-1/17.

¶26

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 proved.

¶27

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant

¶28

5d -

¶29

T.A. No.935 of 2022

¶30

bank and applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.21,53,616.75 (Rupees Twenty One Lacs Fifty Three Thousand Six Hundred Sixteen & paisa Seventy Five only) as on 31.07.2021 along with pendentelite and future interest @11.00% per annum with monthly rest from 01.08.2021 till the date of realization, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated Equipment, stock etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable assets of the defendant.

¶34

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

¶35

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 14.11.2025.

¶36

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

¶37

(GOVIND BAL � R A) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶38

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 16.09.2025

Canara Bank v. M/S Radha Krishan Chole Bhature

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Radha Krishan Chole Bhature

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus Satnam Singh

Uco Bank versus Shiv Charan Singh

Canara Bank versus Jayalakshmi

Sri Sanjay Prasad Proprietor Of Ms Prasad Broom Stick And Anr. versus Indian Bank

Preethy Mole versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Mr Mukesh Singh