Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Vishal Enterprises

DRT14 Jul 2026OA/1057/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for recovery of dues of ₹40,61,713/- with interest from two respondents who allegedly defaulted on a term loan and O.C.C. limit. The court found the debt proved and directed a recovery certificate to be issued.

What did the court decide?

Application for recovery of ₹40,61,713/- with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; Dues recoverable from hypothecated and personal assets.

Canara Bank versus M/S Vishal Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1057/2024 Date of Institution: 20.07.2024 Date of Decision: 14.07.2026

¶4

Canara Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Daggal, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

M/s Vishal Enterprises through its proprietor Vishal Guleria, Village and Post office Mehrana, Tehsil and District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

¶7

Sh. Vishal Guleria s/o Sh. Sudershan Kumar, r/o Village and Post Office Mehrana, Tehsil and District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

¶8

……….Defendants

¶9

Advocates

¶10

Sh. Satish Jaswal proxy counsel for Sh. Sanjay Dalmia, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶11

Sh. Gurnam Singh Counsel for the defendants.

¶12

OA for the Recovery of ₹40,61,713/- with interest @9.15% per annum with monthly rests from 20.07.2024.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Canara Bank has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹40,61,713/- with interest against M/s Vishal Enterprises and another (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 04.06.2021, it had granted a loan of ₹15.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor defendant No.2 in the form of Term Loan under PMMSY Scheme for Business purpose. Again on 14.06.2021, at the request of the defendants, bank granted an O.C.C. Limit of ₹25.00 Lacs under CGTMSE Scheme to defendant no.1 through

¶16

¶17

its proprietor defendant no.2 for Business purpose. To secure both the loan facilities, Defendant No.1 hypothecated assets (fully detailed in Hypothecation Agreement). Both the loan facilities were chargeable to interest @9.15% per annum with monthly rests. Defendants had duly acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 01.01.2024. At the time of filing of the application, a sum of ₹40,61,713/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶18

On 08.12.2024, the defendants filed their written statement wherein they alleged that the bank has concealed material facts and information and violated the principles of natural justice; the amount claimed by the bank is unconscionable; the bank should place on record the vouchers of disputed amounts; the OA has been filed by unauthorized person; the rate of interest is exorbitant and the same has not been reflected in the Statement of Accounts; the executed deeds are in contravention of the guidelines of RBI; the documents relied upon by the bank in the OA have not been filed; the statement of accounts is incomplete and incorrect; the OA is barred by limitation, Hence, the OA be dismissed.

¶19

On 04.07.2025, defendants were summoned for the purpose of admission and denial of the documents. The defendant perused the documents and admitted their signatures on the documents but denied their contents.

¶20

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Vivek Thakur, Branch Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-15. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of

¶21

¶22

₹40.00 Lacs (₹15.00 Lacs as Term Loan; ₹25.00 Lacs as O.C.C. Limit) and at the time of filing of the application, a sum of ₹40,61,713/- was due.

¶23

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹40,61,713/- (Rupees Forty Lacs Sixty One Thousand Seven Hundred Thirteen Only) with interest @9.15% per annum with monthly rests from 20.07.2024, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of both the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated assets fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 17.08.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the hypothecated assets as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 14.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Canara Bank v. M/S Vishal Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Vishal Enterprises

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

Bank of Baroda versus Roshan Ara

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Noorani Garments

Manju Devi versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Jayamma versus Mattancherri Mahajanik/Sarvajanik Urban Cooperative Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S National Industries

M/S Shree Tirupati Finisher versus City Union Bank Limited