Allowed

Canara Bank v. Horizon Enterprises

DRT20 May 2026OA/272/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Canara Bank's application for recovery of Rs.1,85,53,362/- plus 9% p.a. future interest from a defaulting borrower who did not appear. The judgment recognized a mortgage on residential properties as security.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed; Defendant to pay Rs.1,85,53,362 with 9% p.a. future interest; Direction to sell mortgaged property and issue Recovery Certificate.

Canara Bank versus Horizon Enterprises — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on .. 06.12.2019 Registered on .. 18.02.2023 Decided on .. 20.05.2026 Duration .. Y—M—D 06--05--14

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 272/2023.

¶3

Canara Bank,

¶4

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 having its head office at 112 JC Road, Bangalore 560 001 and branch office at Umed Bhavan, Station Road, Pimpri, Pune 411 018.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Shri Dhairyasheel Sampatrao Patil, Age Adult, Occ. Business, Proprietor of Horizon Enterprises, Residing at – Flat No. 1004, A-2 Wing, Prism Housing Society, Aundh, Pune 411 007. … Defendant

¶8

Appearances :-

¶9

For Applicant Advocate R.B. Ganbote. For Defendant Ex parte.

¶10

Total Claim Amount – Rs.1,85,53,362/-

¶11

Sanap ( OA No. 272/2023 ) 1 of 7

¶12

JUDGMENT (Delivered on 20^th May, 2026)

¶13

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for recovery of the sum of Rs.1,85,53,362/- together with future interest @12.85% per annum from the date of filing of Application till realization of the entire dues from the defendant.

¶14

Brief facts of the application are as under :-

¶15

The defendant is the proprietor of Horizon Enterprises. The defendant approached the applicant Bank on 19.10.2015 and requested for Open Cash Credit. As per the request of the defendant, the applicant Bank sanctioned and disbursed the Open Cash Credit facility of Rs.1,50,00,000/- to the defendant vide Sanction Letter dated 20.10.2015.

¶16

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the defendant has executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the applicant Bank. The defendant has also executed letter evidencing deposit of title deeds on 21.10.2015 and created equitable mortgage in favour of the applicant Bank in respect of –

¶17

(a) all that piece and parcel of Row House No. A-84 admeasuring 1014.56 Sq. Ft. i.e. 94.29 Sq. Mtrs. on ground and first floor along with adjacent terrace admeasuring

¶18

Sanap ( OA No. 272/2023 ) 2 of 7

¶19

145 Sq. Ft. i.e. 13.48 Sq. Mtrs. and one car parking space admeasuring 13.48 Sq. Mtrs. and front and rear side marginal open space admeasuring 37.03 Sq. Mtrs. in the scheme known as 'East Manchester Homes' out of Gat No. 473 A at Village Yedrav, Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur, and

¶20

(b) all that piece and parcel of Row House No. A-11 admeasuring 1014 Sq. Ft. i.e. 94.29 Sq. Mtrs. on ground an first floor along with adjacent terrace admeasuring 145 Sq Ft. i.e. 13.48 Sq. Mtrs. and one car parking space admeasuring 13.48 Sq. Mtrs. and front and rear side marginal open space admeasuring 37.03 Sq. Mtrs. in the scheme known as 'East Manchester Homes' out of Gat No. 473 A at Village Yedrav, Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur.

¶21

The defendant has also executed Acknowledgment of Debt and Security on 21.12.2017 and thereby confirmed the balance outstanding in loan account.

¶22

The applicant Bank contended that the defendant committed defaults in payment of installments and failed to regularize the accounts. Hence, the applicant Bank has classified the account of the defendant as NonPerforming Asset in accordance with guidelines of

¶23

Sanap ( OA No. 272/2023 ) 3 of 7

¶24

Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter, the applicant Bank demanded the payment by personal visits and telephonically. However, the defendant has given only false promises and has failed to regularize the account or close the account.

¶25

Hence, this application is filed.

¶26

The defendant failed to appear despite service of summons. Hence, the application proceeded ex-parte against the defendant as per Order dated 12.03.2026 passed below Application (Exhibit-1).

¶27

The applicant Bank has filed Claim Affidavit of evidence (Exhibit-6) of Smt. Jayashree Jayant Rajpathak, Manager and Principal Officer of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents at Sr. Nos. AW-1 to AW-11 along with list (Exhibit 7), which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶28

I have heard arguments of the learned Advocate for the applicant Bank.

¶29

Since the defendant failed to appear and contest the application, I find no reason to disbelieve evidence of the applicant Bank. Therefore, the applicant Bank is entitled for reliefs as claimed.

¶30

Sanap ( OA No. 272/2023 ) 4 of 7

¶31

The applicant Bank has claimed relief in respect of hypothecated assets. However, there is no detailed description with respect to the hypothecated assets, therefore, the relief in terms of hypothecated assets cannot be granted.

¶32

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @12.85% per annum from the date of filing of the Application till full realization of the dues. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Application till full realization of the dues, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶33

Hence, I pass the following order.

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

A} Original Application No. 272/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶36

B} The defendant shall pay to the applicant Bank the sum of Rs.1,85,53,362/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Five Lakh Fifty Three Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Two only) along with future interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 06.12.2019 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

¶37

Sanap ( OA No. 272/2023 ) 5 of 7

¶38

C} The aforesaid adjudicated amount is secured by the valid and subsisting mortgage in respect of - (a) all that piece and parcel of Row House No. A-84 admeasuring 1014.56 Sq. Ft. i.e. 94.29 Sq. Mtrs. on ground and first floor along with adjacent terrace admeasuring 145 Sq. Ft. i.e. 13.48 Sq. Mtrs. and one car parking space admeasuring 13.48 Sq. Mtrs. and front and rear side marginal open space admeasuring 37.03 Sq. Mtrs. in the scheme known as 'East Manchester Homes' out of Gat No. 473 A at Village Yedrav, Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur, and (b) all that piece and parcel of Row House No. A-11 admeasuring 1014 Sq. Ft. i.e. 94.29 Sq. Mtrs. on ground an first floor along with adjacent terrace admeasuring 145 Sq Ft. i.e. 13.48 Sq. Mtrs. and one car parking space admeasuring 13.48 Sq. Mtrs. and front and rear side marginal open space admeasuring 37.03 Sq. Mtrs. in the scheme known as 'East Manchester Homes' out of Gat No. 473 A at Village Yedrav, Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur, more particularly described in the Para No. 5.8 of the Original Application.

¶39

D} The applicant Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged property to recover its dues. E} Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶40

Sanap ( OA No. 272/2023 ) 6 of 7

¶41

F} The Registrar is directed to send the copy of Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendant.

¶42

Sd/( Dilip G. Murumkar ) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date : 20.05.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶43

Sanap ( OA No. 272/2023 ) 7 of 7

Canara Bank v. Horizon Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Horizon Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Central Bank of India versus M/s. Powerwin Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Rajesh Duble

Canara Bank versus Dr. Rucha Amit Wagh Prop. of M/S Rugved Diagnostic

Siddhanath Collection through its proprietor Jitendra v Waghmode versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Union Bank of India versus Sadhu

State Bank of India versus Shyambabu