Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sh.Atul Gupta

DRT21 Feb 2026OA/488/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's recovery application (O.A. No. 488 of 2024) filed ex-parte against a defendant who failed to pay loan installments and interest. The applicant bank recovered its dues including principal, interest, and penal charges.

What did the court decide?

Direct the defendant to pay Rs. 27,68,375.68 with 13.50% interest within 30 days; direct issuance of recovery certificate.

Canara Bank versus Sh.Atul Gupta — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

O.A. No. 488 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. 488 of 2024

¶5

Canara Bank

¶6

1st Floor, 4062/4063, Naya Bazar Khari Baoli, Delhi-110006

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sh. Atul Gupta s/o Raj Kumar Gupta Proprietor M/s Maa Shakumbari Enterprises 4049-4051, Shop No.4,

¶10

Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006

¶11

(Shop at Right side GF no.2646/1, Gali Raghunandan, Raghunandan Bhawan Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006)

¶12

Also at:

¶13

Sh. Atul Gupta s/o Raj Kumar Gupta H.No.19, Gali No.9, Jagat Puri Extension Delhi-110093

¶14

Defendant

¶15

Present: Sh.A.N.Tiwari, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶16

Date of Reserve: 09.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2026

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 20.07.2024 under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.27,68,375.68 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Five & paisa Sixty Eight only) as on 30.06.2024 along with interest @11.50% per annum with monthly rests plus @2% penal interest from date of filing this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶19

¶20

O.A. No. 488 of 2024

¶21

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant being proprietor of M/s Maa Shakumbari Enterprises in the business of packaging and trading of food grains vide loan application dated 19.11.2022, the applicant bank sanctioned OCC limit for Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lacs only) with ODBD limit for Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lacs only) on 31.12.2022 against hypothecation of stocks and book debts as prime security and KDR of Rs.25.00 lacs being 50% collateral security and remaining limit of Rs.25.00 lacs covered under CGTMSE scheme.

¶22

That in order to avail the loan facility, the defendant submitted loan application dated 19.11.2022 and executed Sanction Letter, Pronote, Letter of Loans Advances against Term Deposit (NF-969), Letter of Undertaking, NF-372 Request for Overdraft facilities, Common Hypothecation Agreement on 31.12.2022 with the applicant bank.

¶23

It has been submitted that after availing the loan facility, the defendant miserably failed and neglected to pay the interest and installments in the accounts and maintain financial discipline as per sanction terms and conditions despite various notices and reminders. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 28.02.2024 as per RBI guidelines and appropriated KDR of Rs.25.00 lacs with interest in the account on 29.04.2024 and issued legal notice dated 30.04.2024 for adjustment of the account but the defendant neglected. Hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of its dues.

¶24

Notices of this 0.A. were issued to the defendant and despite proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 12.12.2025, the

¶25

¶26

O.A. No. 488 of 2024

¶27

defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶28

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Deepak Kumar Pandey, authorized representative of the applicant who has proved the documents such as General Power of Attorney, Loan Application, Sanction Letter, Pronote, Letter for Loans / Advances against Term Deposits, Letter of Undertaking, Request for Overdraft Facility, Common Hypothecation Agreement, Notice, Statement of Account with Certificate under Bankers' Book Evidence Act and Indian Evidence Act u/s 2A marked as AW-1/1 to AW-1/10.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days, a sum of Rs.27,68,375.68 (Rupees Twenty Seven Lacs Sixty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Five & paisa Sixty Eight only) as on

¶34

¶35

O.A. No. 488 of 2024

¶36

30.06.2024 along with @13.50% interest per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization along with costs failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stock and book debts. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶37

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

¶38

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 22.04.2026.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

(Dictated and pronounced irropen court) Dated: 21.02.2026

¶42

Canara Bank v. Sh.Atul Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sh.Atul Gupta

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

Sakeena versus Cherpalcheri Cooperative Urban Bank

Jainy Jenson versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Abdul Sathar Pookkattil versus South Indian Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S S.F. Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Reeta Jain

Punjab National Bank versus M/S J.J. India