Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Abhay Industries

DRT20 Mar 2026OA/1916/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for the recovery of a sum of ₹44,98,614/ plus interest, holding that the bank had proved its case for advances under various loan schemes which remained unpaid.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of ₹44,98,614/ plus interest at 10.30% p.a. from 19.09.2022 with costs. Issued Recovery Certificate. Liability declared joint and several.

Canara Bank versus M/S Abhay Industries — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 1916/2022 Date of Institution: 19.09.2022 Date of Decision: 20.03.2026

¶4

Canara Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Parwanoo, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

M/s Abhay Industries, a sole proprietor concern through its proprietor Sh. Kuldeep Katoch s/o Sh. Parma Ram Katoch, office at village Ambota Parwanoo, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

¶7

Kuldeep Katoch s/o Sh. Parma Ram Katoch, r/o Khasra No.458, Village Ambota Parwanoo, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

¶8

……….Defendants

¶9

Advocates

¶10

Sh. Jatinder Sharma, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 13.08.2025 .

¶11

OA for the Recovery of ₹44,98,614/- with interest @10.30% p.a. with monthly rests from 19.09.2022.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Canara Bank has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of ₹44,98,614/- with interest against M/s Abhay Industries and another (defendants).

¶14

Bank’s case is that on 26.12.2017, it had granted O.C.C. Limit of ₹20.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 for Business purpose. Again on 03.02.2018, at the request of the defendants, applicant bank granted a C.C. Limit of ₹5.00 Lacs under PMMY (KISHORE) MSME Scheme for Business purpose. Again on 30.01.2019, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing O.C.C. Limit from ₹20.00 Lacs to ₹28.00 Lacs. Again on 04.05.2020, as

¶15

¶16

per the guidelines of the RBI during the COVID-19 pandemic, bank granted Term Loan of ₹2.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 for business purpose. Again on 04.06.2020, at the request of the defendants, bank granted a loan of ₹6.00Lacs under Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line facility to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 for business purpose. Again on 26.03.2021, the above mentioned enhanced O.C.C. Limit of ₹28.00 Lacs was restructured and interest of ₹2.54Lacs was converted into a Term Loan. Again on 03.11.2021, at the request of the defendants, applicant bank granted a loan of ₹3.98 Lacs in the form of GECL (Extension-1) to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 for business purpose. All the loan facilities were chargeable to different rates of interest. On 30.06.2022, a sum of ₹44,98,614/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶17

On 29.09.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 13.08.2025, they were proceeded ex parte .

¶18

In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Vikash Kumar, Manager along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-41. 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 loans under various schemes and on 30.06.2022, a sum of ₹44,98,614/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of ₹44,98,614/- (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Ninety Eight Thousand Six

¶19

¶20

Hundred Fourteen Only) with interest @10.30% p.a. with monthly rests from 19.09.2022, 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 personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶21

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 29.04.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds 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: 20.03.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh

¶22

MANOJ KALRA

Canara Bank v. M/S Abhay Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Abhay Industries

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 Arvind and Sons Ksk

Punjab National Bank (Oriental Bank of Commerce) versus Kheta Singh

State Bank of India versus Sivaraj

Smt Veena Jain versus City Union Bank Limited

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus Rachpal Kaur @ Rashpal Kaur

Smt Lavina Murarka and Anr. versus Axis Bank