Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Aman Enterprises

DRT24 Mar 2026OA/449/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of outstanding loan dues aggregating Rs. 2.08 Crores with interest against the respondents, directing issuance of a Recovery Certificate and sale of hypothecated assets. The payment of these proceeds shall be distributed per the Act.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed for recovery of Rs. 2,08,04,463.26 with interest; Recovery Certificate issued; sale of hypothecated assets directed.

Canara Bank versus M/S Aman Enterprises — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA No: 449/2022 Date of Institution: 10.03.2022 Date of Decision: 24.03.2026

¶4

Canara Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Dharam Singh Market, Golden Temple Road, District Amritsar, Punjab.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Aman Enterprises, having its registered office at Shop no.1, 2^nd Floor, New Market Chowk, Hussain Pura District Amritsar, Punjab, through its proprietor Sh. Aman Dhal.

¶8

Aman Dhal s/o Sh. Harish Chander Dhal, Shop No.3432, Dewan Complex, Sultanwind Road, District Amritsar, Punjab.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Sh. Arvind Rajotia through VC, Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants - ex parte vide order dated 23.01.2025 .

¶12

OA for the Recovery of Rs.2,08,04,463.26p with interest @10.20% per annum with monthly rests from 10.03.2022.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Canara Bank has filed this application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) for the recovery of Rs.2,08,04,463.26p with interest against M/s Aman Enterprises and another (defendants).

¶15

Bank’s case is that in the year 2003, applicant bank had granted a loan of Rs.2.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 under CGTMSE for Business purpose, which was enhanced to Rs.50.00 Lacs in the year 2013. At the request of the defendants the applicant bank renewed-cum-enhanced the O.C.C. Limit from time to time. On 08.04.2020, the aforementioned O.C.C. Limit was renewed-cum-enhanced lastly at Rs.140.00Lacs. Again on 30.04.2020,

¶16

¶17

during the COVID-19 pandemic, bank granted a W.C.D.L. of Rs.8,75,000/- to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 for Business Purpose. Again on 25.06.2020, applicant bank granted a Term Loan of Rs.28.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2 for Business Purpose. On 31.03.2021, the applicant bank had also granted F.I.T.L. to defendant No.1 through its proprietor i.e. defendant No.2. To secure the loans, Defendant No.2 being the proprietor of defendant No.1 had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). All the loan facilities were chargeable at different rates of interest. On 31.12.2021, a sum of Rs.2,08,04,463.26p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, this application.

¶18

On 25.03.2022, summonses were sent to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, defendants did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 23.01.2025, they were proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Abhishek Pandey, Authorized Officer along with the loan and security documents and marked them as Exhibit A-1 to A-43. 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 31.12.2021, a sum of Rs.2,08,04,463.26p was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the bank for the recovery of Rs.2,08,04,463.26p (Rupees Two Crores Eight Lacs Four Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Three and Paise Twenty Six Only) with interest @10.20% per annum with monthly rests from 10.03.2022, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of both the

¶19

¶20

defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated assets fully detailed in para No.3A of the application as well as from the 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 01.05.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the hypothecated assets 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.

¶22

Pronounced in the open Court. (A S Narang) Dated: 24.03.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Canara Bank v. M/S Aman Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Aman Enterprises

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

Union Bank of India versus Darshan Plastics

Icici Bank Limited versus Manisha Ajay Sood

Capital Small Finance Bank Limited versus Sham Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Rajinder Pal Singh

Ms Rimpa and Simpa Enterprise And Ors. versus Indian Bank

c Nayarayanamma versus Canara Bank