Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Desert Rose Designs

DRT19 Jan 2026OA/127/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 84,08,892.55 along with interest and costs against the respondent firm and proprietor after ex parte proceedings, directing issuance of a recovery certificate and future sale proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; recovery of Rs. 84.08 Lakhs plus interest and costs granted; directed to sell assets and issue Recovery Certificate; Order that subsequent parties appear before Recovery Officer.

Canara Bank versus M/S Desert Rose Designs — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 127/2022 Date of Institution: 15.01.2022 Date of Decision: 19.01.2026 Canara Bank at Ess Kay Tower, Old Railway Road, Gurgaon, Haryana122001 ……..Applicant Vs. 1. M/s Desert Rose Designs, a Proprietorship firm with principal of business at Plot No. 110, Pace City 1, Sector-37, Gurgaon, Haryana, through its Proprietor Sh. Sarfaraz Sheikh 2. Sh. Sarfaraz Mohammad Sheik, r/o House No. 18/3B, Central Park Resorts, Sector 48, Near Subhash Chowk, Gurgaon, Haryana ……….Defendants Advocates Sh. Pancham Sharma, Counsel for the applicant bank Defendants- ex parte OA for the Recovery of Rs.84,08,892.55p with interest @9.35% per annum with monthly rests from 15.01.2022. ORDER 1. Canara Bank (Applicant Bank) has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.84,08,892.55p with interest against M/s Desert Rose Designs and Another (defendants). 2. Defendant No. 1 is a Proprietorship firm of defendant No. 2. Bank’s case is that on 16.06.2016, it had granted loans of Rs.75.00 Lacs

¶4

¶5

in the form of SODH Limit Facility which was renewed on 30.03.2019 for Rs. 60.00 Lacs and Rs.25.00 Lacs in the form of Term Loan Facility and on 26.06.2020, it had granted Rs.10.00 Lacs in the form of Guaranteed Emergency Facility and Rs.3,14,606/- in the form of CFITL Facility under CGTMSE Facility to the defendants for business purpose. The loans were chargeable to interest @10.90% per annum with monthly rests in SODH Facility and @11.15% per annum with monthly rests in Term Loan Facility. On 30.11.2021, a sum of Rs.84,08,892.55p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶6

On 17.03.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 27.05.2022, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶7

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Ms Ruby Vohra, Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-17. 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 total loans of Rs.88,14,606/- and on 30.11.2021, a sum of Rs.84,08,892.55p was due.

¶8

Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.84,08,892.55p (Rupees Eighty Four Lakh Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Two and Fifty Five Paisa Only) with interest @9.35% per annum with monthly rests from 15.01.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of all the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated

¶9

¶10

assets/stocks/goods/book debts etc. as well as from the personal movable and immovable property of the defendants.

¶11

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 28.02.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act .

¶12

A copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties.

¶13

Pronounced in the open Court (A S Narang) Dated: 19.01.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-2, Chandigarh (Additional charge)

Canara Bank v. M/S Desert Rose Designs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Desert Rose Designs

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

State Bank of India versus M/S Agro Food Beverages

Icici Bank Limited versus Jitender Kumar

Bank of Baroda versus Dharamveer Singh

State Bank of India versus M/S Superb Industries a Proprietary Concern through Proprietor Shri Pankaj Narayanji Warfade

Amrutha Foods versus Canara Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Passi (Since Deceased)