Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Perfect Energy Engineering Works

DRT25 Aug 2026OA/1512/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the Bank's OA for recovery of Rs.26,51,753/- with interest against sole proprietor concern and its proprietor. The application was decided ex parte as defendants did not appear. The court directed issuance of a recovery certificate with joint and several liability.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs.26,51,753/- with interest and costs; Recovery Certificate to be issued; Joint and several liability directed.

Canara Bank versus M/S Perfect Energy Engineering… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1512/2024 Date of Institution: 03.10.2024 Date of Decision: 25.08.2026 …Applicant

¶4

Canara Bank, branch at Parwanoo, District Solan (HP).

¶5

Vs.

¶6

M/s Perfect Energy Engineering Works, a sole proprietor concern through its proprietor Mrs. Pooja Chandiok W/o Sh. Puneet Chandiok having work at Shop No.4-5-6, Apple Mandi, Near Kalka Shimla Expressway, Parwanoo, District Solan (HР).

¶7

Mrs. Pooja Chandiok W/o Sh. Puneet Chandiok R/o HIG-27, Block No.11, Sector-6, Parwanoo, District Solan (HP).

¶8

…Defendants

¶9

Advocates

¶10

Sh. J.K. Sharma, Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Defendants – ex parte .

¶11

OA for the Recovery of Rs.26,51,753/- with interest from 03.10.2024.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

On 03.10.2024, Canara Bank filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.26,51,753/- with interest against M/s Perfect Energy Engineering Works and another (defendants).

¶14

Defendant No.1 is a sole proprietorship concern and defendant No.2 is its sole proprietor. Bank’s case is that on 05.07.2019, it had granted a working capital term loan of Rs.18 lacs under CGTMSE scheme to defendant No.1, through its proprietor, for business purpose. The WCTL facility was chargeable to interest @11.10% per annum with monthly rests. On 03.06.2020, Bank had granted a GECL facility of Rs.3.30 lacs. On 03.11.2021, Bank had also granted a GECL (Extension) facility of Rs.1.71 lacs. Both the GECL facility of Rs.3.30 lacs and the

¶15

¶16

GECL (Extension) facility of Rs.1.71 lacs were chargeable to interest @9.25% per annum with monthly rests. To secure the limits, defendant No.1, through its proprietor, had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para Nos.5.5, 5.6, and 5.7 of the application). The defendants had acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 01.07.2022. On 30.08.2024, a sum of Rs.26,51,753/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶17

On 22.10.2024, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 08.08.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶18

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Vikash Kumar, Manager, along with the loan and security documents.

¶19

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 loans under various schemes and on 30.08.2024, a sum of Rs.26,51,753/- (WCTL: Rs.20,67,032/-; GECL: Rs.1,99,530/and GECL (Extension): Rs.1,85,191/-) was due.

¶20

Accordingly, the application of the Bank for the recovery of Rs.26,51,753/- (Rupees Twenty-Six Lacs Fifty-One Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty-Three Only) with interest, i.e., WCTL of Rs.20,67,032/- with interest @11.10% per annum with monthly rests and Rs.3,84,721/- being the aggregate of GECLs with interest @9.25% per annum with monthly rests from 03.10.2024, 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

¶21

¶22

assets (fully detailed in para Nos.5.5, 5.6, and 5.7 of the application) as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶23

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 28.09.2026 . 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: 25.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶24

HARSH

Canara Bank v. M/S Perfect Energy Engineering Works

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Perfect Energy Engineering Works

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

Rajinder Kaur Chhabra versus Aavas Financiers Limited

Karur Vysya Bank versus Singh Communication

State Bank of India versus Vijay Naithani and Ors.

Federal Bank versus Mr. Sajjan Dhingra

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Sumit Ornament House

Union Bank of India versus Sh Raman Sharma and Ors.