Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri Hari Bandhu Jana

DRT16 Apr 2026OA/106/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of a debt of approximately Rs. 37 lakhs against the sole defendant. The court directed the defendant to pay the principal amount along with penal interest and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay total debt of Rs. 37,13,139.68 plus interest at 10.90% p.a. and issuance of Recovery Certificate under Section 19(22) RDB Act.

Canara Bank versus Sri Hari Bandhu Jana — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Page No.

¶2

KOLKATA DEBTS REGOVERY TRIBUNAL NO. 2 ORDER SHEET (Conti nuation)

¶3

Canara Bank

¶4

0.A./106 ot2024

¶5

Case No Vs
Sri Hari Bandhu Jana
Ofiice action with
Date date and dated
of Order with Signature Signature of
Order parties when
necessary
Counsel for the parties:
16.04.2026 Mr. Amit Gupta, Ld. Advocate appears for the applicant
Bank.
None for the defendant.
O.A./'106 ot 2024 is allowed and disposed of.
Final Order / Judgment is in separate sheet of 5 pages.
File be consigned to record room.
Order be uploaded on the Tribunal's website.
'
6
(Arbind Madhav)
Presiding Officer
DRT-2, Kolkata

¶6

¶7

0.A.1106 ot 2024 - ORr-2lKot

¶8

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 2, KOLKATA Jeevan Sudha Bldg. 07ttt Floor,42tC, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata _7OOO71

¶9

Before Shri Arbin d Madhav. Presidino Officer

¶10

O.A. No. 106 of 2024

¶11

ln the matter of

¶12

canara Bank, a body corporate constituted under the provisions of the Banking companies (Acquisition & Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970, having its head office at 112, J.c. Road, Bengaluru - 560002, and carrying on business, inter-alia, at its Ukhra Branch, Madhiganj Road, opposite Hearth centre, p.o.- Ukhra, Dist.- paschim Bardhaman, Pin - 713363, West Bengal.

¶13

Applicant Bank

¶14

-Versus-

¶15

1- sri Hari Bandhu Jana, son of sri Uday Jana, carrying on business under the name and style of "M/s Maa Durga Agency and computers", as sore proprietor at NSB Road, Ukhra, P.O.- Ukhra, Dist.-^paschim Bardhaman, pin _ 713363, West Bengal; also at Ukhra saradapalli -2,p.o.- Ukhra, Dist.- paschim Bardhaman, pin -^{713363,West Bengal.}

¶16

Defendant

¶17

Counsel for parties: For the Applicant Bank : Mr. Amit Gupta For the Defendant '. Ex-Pafte.

¶18

FINAL ORDER / J UDGMENT Delivered on 16.04.2O26

¶19

Applicant, Canara Bank, instituted the present Application being the Original Application No.106 of 2024 on26.03.2024 against sole Defendant under section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (amended from time to time) for recovery of sum of Rs.37,13,139.68 (Rupees thirty seven lakhs thirteen thousand one hundred thirty nine and paisa sixty eight) including interest as calculated upto 08.03.2024 with further interest @13.40Yo per annum with monthly rests from 09.03.2024, till realization of the entire due in full.

¶20

The brief facts of the case as set out by the Applicant Bank in its Original Application, as under:

¶21

(i) The Defendant No. 1 being the proprietor of 'M/s Maa Durga Agency and Computers' applied to the applicant Bank for credit facilities. Upon consideration of application applicant Bank by its lefter dated 24.09.2021 sanctioned a credit facility in terms of overdraft under Canara OCC Scheme with a limit of Rs.25.00 Lakh (Rupees

¶22

¶23

¶24

O.A./106 of 2024 - DRT-ZKoI

¶25

twenty five lakh) which was duly accepted by sole defendant. Again at the request of sole defendant, applicant Bank sanctioned a Vehicle loan with a limit of Rs.1o.oo Lakh (Rupees ten lakh) on 21.06.2021. Again at the request of sole defendant, applicant Bank has sanctioned a Demand Loan for Rs.2.00 Lakh (Rupees two lakh) on 31 .12.2019 and also sanctioned a credit card with a limit of Rs.0.50 Lakh (Rupees fifty thousand) on 24.05.2021. At further request of the Defendant, appticant bank also renewed the said loan account with limit of Rs.2s.00 Lakh (Rupees twenty five lakh) on 2s.10.2022. copies of Applicant's sanction/application letter dated 24.0g.2021,21.06.2021, 31.12.2019,24-05.2021 and 2s.10.2022 are annexed and marked with retter^,,A,,.

¶26

(ii) ln acknowledgment of granting the said credit facilities, the sole defendant duly executed the following loan / security documents in favour of applicant Bank:

¶27

(a) Pronote of Rs.25.00 lakhs dated 24.09.2021;

¶28

(b) Pronote of Rs.25.00 lakhs dated 25.10.2022;

¶29

¶30

(d) Letter of Undertaking/Consent dated 24.09.2021;

¶31

(e) Letter of Undertaking not to avail OCC Facility elsewhere dated 24.0g.2021;

¶32

(f) Lefter evidencing execution of documents dated 24.09.2021;

¶33

(g) Certificate of Loan Papers obtained dated 24.09.2021;

¶34

(h) Supplemental Agreement dated 24.09.2021:

¶35

(i) Stock Statement daled 07.09.2021;

¶36

O^{Letter of Renewalfor Rs 25.00 Lakhsdated} 25.10.2022;

¶37

(k) Letter of Undertaking dated25.10.2022;

¶38

(l) Request for Overdraft Facilities dated 25.10.2022.

¶39

Copies of said documents are annexed and marked with Letter "A-1" to "A-12' respectively.

¶40

(iii) The defendant has executed the Acknowledgement of Debt / Securities dated 25.10.2022 in favour of applicant Bank acknowledging the outstanding balance in loan Account(s). Copy of said document is annexed and marked with Letter'A-15'. 3. The defendant availed and enjoyed the said credit facilities by opening Account in Bank's Ukhra Branch, Madhiganj Road, Dist.- Paschim Bardhaman, Pin - 713363. However, the defendants did not comply with the agreed terms and conditions of said facilities, thus violated the terms and conditions of said sanctions. The defendant did not repay the outstanding Bank's dues and overdue interest of loan accounts. Despite several requests made by applicant Bank, the defendants did not pay any attention to regularize the Accounts; consequently, the accounts became irregular and was classified as NPA on 18.07.2023. Since the defendants / borrowe(s) failed to liquidate the dues with the applicant Bank inspite of repeated requests and reminders, applicant Bank compelled to issue / serve Demand Notice dated 12.03.2024 upon the defendant through its Ld. Advocate demanding to repay the outstanding loan amount, but the defendant did not comply the said Notice, copy of said demand notice dated 12.03.2024 is annexed

¶41

¶42

¶43

0.4./106 0f 2024 - DRT-2/Kot

¶44

and marked with Letter 'A-13'. certified copies of statement of Accounts along with certificate under Bankers' Books of Evidence Act, with interest calculation sheet, (Annexure 'A-14'), have been filed to show and prove the dues, and further interest @ 13.40o/o per annum with monthly rest from 09.03.2024, till realization of the entire due in full, has been prayed. Applicant Bank submitted that their claim in the original Application is within limitation.

¶45

The Notice / summons were sent to the sole Defendant by the Tribunal. lt is observed from the S/R on affidavit dated 19.03.2025 and its enclosures that service of Notices / summons upon the Defendant is successful, such has been recorded vide Ld. Registrar's orderdated 21 .05.2025. Despite service, the defendant did not appear nor filed the written statement; thus, the sole defendant was ordered to be proceeded expafte vide order dated 12.03.2026. Applicant Bank has filed the written notes of argument on 17.09.2025 thereby stated the brief facts of the case as has been narrated in the original application. Ld. Advocate of the applicant Bank has submitted argument on dated 12.03.2026.

¶46

Applicant Bank has filed evidence on Afiidavit, affirmed by Gajendra Bhushan Prasad, Branch Manager of Bank's Ukhra Branch, Ukhra, Dist.- paschim Bardhaman, Pin - 713363 along with the copy of original documents executed by the defendant. original documents have been produced by applicant Bank; the same have been verified with copies of documents annexed with the O.A. and after verification the originals have been returned to Sri Gajendra Bhushan Prasad, Manager of Bank's Ukhra Branch, Ukhra, Dist.- Paschim Bardhaman on 24.12.2024, such has been recorded in Ld. Asstt. Registrar's Order dated 24.12.2024 The documents produced by applicant Bank are exhibited and marked as Exhibits'A' &'A-1' to'A-16'.

¶47

I have heard the Ld. Advocate ofthe applicant Bank and perused the records.

¶48

Evidence-on-affidavit, filed by applicant Bank, has remained unchallenged, unrebutted and its veracity cannot be put to dispute. Applicant Bank has proved the averments made in the original Application. Applicant Bank has proved the sanction of Overdraft facility under Canara OCC scheme of Rs.25.00 lakh vide sanction letter dated 24.09.2021; again sanctioned a Vehicle Loan of Rs.10.00 lakh on 21.06.2021; again sanctioned a Demand Loan of Rs.2.00 lakh on 31.12.2019 and also sanctioned a credit card with a limit of Rs.0.50 lakh on 24.05.2021, and applicant bank also renewed the said loan account with limit of Rs.25.00 lakh on 25.10.2022. Applicant Bank has proved the hypothecated movable assets, morefully described in Schedule at page 83 Annexure 'A-16' and para lll.A at page 6 & 7 of the original application.

¶49

On the point of limitation, the loan has been sanctioned on 24.09.2021 , 21.06.2021, 31.12.2019, 24.05.2021 subsequently renewed the loan account on 25.10.2022; documents have been executed on 24.09.2021 and 25.10.2022; original Application has been filed on 26.03.2024. As such, the original Application appears to have been filed well within the period of limitation.

¶50

¶51

¶52

o.A.1106 of 2024 - oRr-zrKor

¶53

Applicant Bank stated that the outstanding balance in Loan Accounts (inclusive of accrued interests and other charges as calculated upto 0g.03.2024) for an aggregate sum of Rs.37,13,139.68 (Rupees thirty seven lakhs thirteen thousand one hundred thirty nine and paisa sixty eight) as on 08.03.2024, which is the amount claimed by the applicant Bank in the original Application, and the sole defendant is liable to repay the said amount to the applicant Bank with pendente tite and future interest, till realization. I allow the claim as made by applicant Bank in the original Application. Applicant Bank has prayed further interest @ 13.40yo per annum with monthly rests from 09.03.2024, till realization of the entire due in full, while in the pronote daled 24.09.2021 & 2s.10.2022 the rate of interest @ 1o.9oo/o per annum with monthly rest, has been mentioned. Therefore, in my view, the pendente /lfe & future rate of interest @ lo.goyo per annum, with quarterly rests, from 09.03.2024, till realization of the entire due in full, is allowed.

¶54

The matter also falls within the tenitorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The Applicant Bank has proved to claim made in the o.A. The original application being 0.A./106 of 2024 deseryes to be allowed; hence allowed.

¶55

ln view of the above, I pass the following order:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) O.A. No.106 of 2024, filed by applicant Bank, is allowed and debt is determined with cost against the Defendant. lt is hereby ordered that the sole Defendant is hereby directed to pay the total debt amount of Rs.37,13,139.68 (Rupees thirty seven lakhs thirteen thousand one hundred thirty nine and paisa sixty eight) due and payable, inclusive of interest and other charges as calculated upto 08.03.2024; and interest for the petiod pendente lite and future rate @ 10.90% per annum, with quarterly rests, ftom 09.03.2024, till realization of the entire sum due and recoverable.

¶58

(ii) Amount, if any, paid by the Defendant in the loan accounts or amount, if any, recovered by applicant Bank after filing of the original application, the same may be taken into account while arriving at the exact amount of dues/debt payable by the Defendant. Accordingly, the pendente lite and future interest shall be calculated on the reduced amount.

¶59

(iii) The defendant is debaned from transferring, alienating, encumbering or disposing of the hypothecated movable assets, described in Schedule at page 83 Annexure^'A-16' and para lll.A at page 6 & 7 of the original application, as under -

¶60

Hypothecated Movable Assets:

¶61

"All^{that the Hypothecafed Sfocksof Electronics Appliancesand Book Debts lying} and situate at M/s Maa Durga Agency and Computers af NSB Road, Ukhra, P.O.Ukhra, Dist.- Paschim Bardhaman, West Bengal - 713363."

¶62

The Defendant is also debarred from transferring, alienating, encumbering or disposing OF any other^property(s) either movable or immovable and assets belonging to z-t-him^{till the aforesaidadjudicated debt amount are recoveredfrom the Defendant.} @

¶63

¶64

O.A./106 of 2024 - DRT-2/Kot

¶65

(iv) The defendant is given a time of sixty days from the date of this Finat order / Judgment for repayment of the above mentioned dues, so intimated to him. ln case the Defendant fails to pay the dues within the above mentioned time, applicant Bank is entitled to recover its dues by sale of secured property(s), as aforesaid. Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against personal property(s) of the Defendant both moveable and immoveable and also proceed against the Defendant personally to recover the dues, in accordance with law.

¶66

(v) Let the certificate of Recovery be drawn up by Ld. Registrar forthwith in terms of Final Order / Judgment for issuance of the same against the sole Defendant in favour of applicant Bank under section 19(22) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (amended from time to time) and put up the same for signature for issuance.

¶67

(vi) Ld. Recovery Officer shall realize the amount as per the Recovery Certificate from the Defendant, in accordance with law.

¶68

(vii) Ld. Registrar of this Tribunal is directed to place Recovery Certificate in terms of this Final Order / Judgment under section 1 9(22) of the Act of 1993.

¶69

Accordingly, the originar Application, being o.A./106 ot 2024 is ailowed and stands disposed of.

¶70

This order'is dictated and corrected by the undersigned and pronounced on this the 16th day of April, 2026.

¶71

Copy of the Final Order / Judgment be uploaded in the Tribunal's Website.

¶72

Atl.,n0 t\il^t-. @ Presiding fficer DRT-2, Kolkata

¶73

kkb

Canara Bank v. Sri Hari Bandhu Jana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri Hari Bandhu Jana

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

Canara Bank versus Sri Debashis Maity

Arup Kumar Mallick versus Contai Co- Operative Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Sri Ajay Kumar Patra

Punjab National Bank versus Sri Kanailal Das

Canara Bank versus Sri Naba Kumar Banerjee

Icici Bank Limited versus Abdul Kader Seikh