Allowed

Canara Bank v. Deeyog Metal Pvt. Ltd.

DRT5 Sept 2026OA/198/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT-I, Delhi allowed the original application filed by Canara Bank against its borrowers and guarantors for recovery of a loan sum of Rs. 45,33,041.48 along with interest and pendency costs, directing payment within 30 days and issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay Rs. 45,33,041.48 with interest at 8.90% p.a. within 30 days; in default, recovery from hypothecated assets or other properties. Directed issuance of recovery certificate.

Canara Bank versus Deeyog Metal Pvt. Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

O.A. No.198 of 2024

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

O.A. No. 198 of 2024

¶5

Canara Bank 2154, Outram Lines Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009 Applicant
Versus
1. M/s Deeyog Metal Pvt.Ltd. 1508, R.G.Trade Tower, B-7, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi-34
Also at: 238, Khasra No.23/8/2, Gali No.11 Village Samaipur, Delhi-110042
2. Sh.Aseem Gupta, Guarantor R/o 137, SFS Flats Phase IV Ashok Vihar North West Delhi-52
3. Mrs. Suman Lata, Guarantor R/o 137, SFS Flats Phase IV Ashok Vihar North West Delhi-52 Defendants
Present: Sh.Ravi Kumar, Counsel for the applicant bank Date of Reserve: 19.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 05.09.2026

¶6

FINAL ORDER

¶7

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 20.03.2024, through Shri Prem Niwas Chandan, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.45,33,041.48 (Rupees

¶8

¶9

O.A. No.198 of 2024

¶10

Forty Five lacs Thirty Three thousand Forty One & paisa Forty Eight only) as on 18.03.2024 along with pendentelite and future interest @8.90% per annum with monthly rest from 18.032024 till its realization and costs.

¶11

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 being private limited company engaged in the business of trading of metal and metal products was sanctioned OCC limit of Rs.75.00 lacs on 28.03.2022 @8.90% interest per annum against guarantee of defendant no.2 and 3 and hypothecation of stocks and book debts covered under CGTMSE scheme.

¶12

That in order to avail the credit facility, the defendant no.1 submitted loan application form and executed Pronote, Common Hypothecation Agreement, Guarantee Agreements (NF370/04-2019), Form NF-371 Guarantee covering Letters, Request for Overdraft facilities (NF-372), Undertakings NF721/1L(50) 2005-08/PWL etc. on 29.03.2022 in favour of applicant bank.

¶13

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the credit facility, the defendants failed to comply with the sanction terms and conditions and failed & neglected to maintain financial discipline despite repeated requests and demands. The defendants failed to regularize the account and the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 23.09.2023. The defendant acknowledged their part liability and handed over cheque no.779924 dated 25.09.2023 of Yes Bank which was returned unpaid due to "Funds Insufficient". The applicant bank issued legal notice dated 05.10.2023 to pay entire outstanding dues to the applicant bank and they

¶14

¶15

O.A. No.198 of 2024

¶16

deposited some amount towards the liability but failed to clear the dues. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶17

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 04.05.2026, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendants.

¶18

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Prem Niwas Chandan, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney, Loan Application, Sanction Letter, Pronote, Common Hypothecation Agreement, Guarantee Agreements (NF370/04-2019), Form NF-371 Guarantee covering Letters, Request for Overdraft facilities (NF-372), Undertakings NF721/1L(50) 2005-08/PWL, NPA Certificate, Statement of Account, Legal Notice, Postal Receipts, Tracking Report, Legal Notice dated 05.10.2023 and 06.10.2023 marked as Ex.AW-1/1 to Ex.AW-1/19(Colly).

¶19

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly proved.

¶20

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts sd

¶21

¶22

O.A. No.198 of 2024

¶23

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank, jointly or severally, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs.45,33,041.48 (Rupees Forty Five lacs Thirty Three thousand Forty One & paisa Forty Eight only) as on 18.03.2024 together with pendentelite and future interest @8.90% per annum with monthly rest from 18.03.2024 till the date of realization, failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks & book debts. In case of shortfall / default, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable property/assets of the defendant.

¶26

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶27

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 04.11.2026.

¶28

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶29

-54 (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶30

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 05.09.2026

¶31

Canara Bank v. Deeyog Metal Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Deeyog Metal Pvt. Ltd.

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 Sahruk Trading Co. and Anr.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Eranna Alias Eranna Devarmani

City Union Bank Limited versus Ms Rajdeep Tissues

State Bank of India versus M/S R R Brothers

Poonam Kushwaha versus Sammaan Capital Limited

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Renovo Constructions India Pvt. Ltd.