Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sai Cement Product

DRT17 Jan 2026OA/58/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Canara Bank to recover Rs. 35,94,907/- from Sai Cement Product and Mr. Sunil Ganeshlal Sonawane for defaulted term and overdraft loans, granting future interest at 9%. The order secured the dues on hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 35,94,907/- with future interest at 9% per annum simple; realization of hypothecated assets.

Canara Bank versus Sai Cement Product — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Presented on: 15.11.2022 Registered on: 24.04.2023 Decided on: 17.01.2026 Duration: Y M D 03 02 02

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J. R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 58/2023

¶3

TOTAL CLAIM AMOUNT – Rs. 35,94,907/-

¶4

CANARA BANK,

¶5

A Body Corporate constituted under the Banking companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at 112 JC Road, Bangalore Karnataka State having perpetual Succession and one of its SME Branch at Railway Station Road, Aurangabad-01, through its Chief Manager and Authorized Signatory Mr. Akhilesh Chandra Joshi.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Sai Cement Product, Through its Prop. Mr. Sunil Ganeshlal Sonawane, Block No. 4, Plot No. A39, Shri. Krushna Nagar, Gut No. 136, Gandheli, Tal. And Dist. Aurangabad 431007.

(OA No.58/2023)

Page 1 of 7

[AMBADAS]

2. Mr. Sunil Ganeshlal Sonawane,

¶13

Age: 39 years, Occ.: Business, R/o.: House No. 5-12-2, Sai Nivas, Sonar Lane, Behind Jaydeep Apartment Padampura, Aurangabad – 05.

¶14

…Defendant

¶15

APPEARANCES

¶16

For the Applicant For Defendants

¶17

Mr. Sameer J. Pande -Advocate Ex-parte

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Delivered on 17.01.2026

¶20

The Applicant Bank has filed the present application for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 35,94,907/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs, Ninety Four Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seven only), along with future interest from the date of filing of the Original Application, i.e., 15.11.2022, until the date of realization of the entire outstanding dues from the Defendants.

¶21

Brief facts of the application are as under:

¶22

The Applicant Bank states that the Defendant No. 2 being proprietor of defendant No. 1 approached and requested the Applicant Bank for Term loan & Overdraft loan facility. Upon

(OA No.58/2023)

Page 2 of 7

[AMBADAS]

considering the request and financial needs of the Defendant, the Applicant Bank sanctioned Term loan of Rs. 28,49,000/- & Overdraft loan facility of Rs. 6,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 08.02.2022 on certain terms and conditions. The agreed rate of interest for the aforesaid loans was @9.55 & @9.15% p.a. with monthly rests. The Defendant also agreed to pay additional interest @2% by way of liquidated damages in the event of any default in repayment.

¶27

In order to secure the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendants executed various loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank. These included sanction letters, hypothecation agreements, article agreement, demand promissory notes, etc., in favour of the

¶28

Applicant Bank.

¶29

The Applicant Bank further contends that, in order to secure the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed hypothecation agreements thereby hypothecating stocks, machineries,

(OA No.58/2023)

Page 3 of 7

[AMBADAS]

receivables, book-debts and other movables assets etc., in favor of the applicant bank.

¶34

The applicant bank contended that the defendants have failed to keep their promise and commitments agreed by them with regard to due repayment of the loan amount. The defendants failed to operate the loan account properly and failed to pay the agreed rate of interest as per terms and conditions of the sanction letter. Thereafter, the applicant bank repeatedly made demand of loan amount and called upon the defendants to pay with the agreed rate of interest thereon, but the defendants failed and neglected to pay the same. The loan account of the defendants became irregular and classified as NPA. Therefore, on 24.08.2022 the applicant bank issued legal notice to the defendants through their advocate. Despite service of Notices, the defendants failed and neglected to repay the outstanding dues of the applicant Bank. Hence, this application is filed.

(OA No.58/2023)

Page 4 of 7

[AMBADAS]

The defendants failed to appear in matter though they were served through summons. Hence, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte as per Order dated 23.11.2023.

¶39

The applicant Bank has filed Evidence Affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-4 of Mr. Akhilesh Chandra Joshi, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank, and has produced on record the original loan transaction documents as Annexure A-1 to A-20 along with list of documents Exh.5 which corroborates the case of the applicant Bank.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

The applicant Bank has claimed charge over hypothecated properties of the borrowers.

(OA No.58/2023)

Page 5 of 7

[AMBADAS]

The applicant Bank has claimed future interest @15% p. a. from the date of filing i.e. 18.11.2022 of this application till realization of the claim amount. However, considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that if future interest is granted @ 9% per annum (simple) on outstanding amount, it would be just and reasonable rate of interest.

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(A) Original Application No. 58/2023 is allowed with costs.

¶49

(B) The defendants shall pay jointly and severally to the applicant Bank a sum of Rs. 35,94,907/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs, Ninety Four Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seven only), along with future interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the Original Application i.e. 15.11.2022 till full payment/realization of the amount mentioned in this operative order.

(OA No.58/2023)

Page 6 of 7

[AMBADAS]

other movables assets vide documents at Annexure A-5

¶55

in list of documents Exh. 5.

¶56

(D) The applicant Bank is entitled to sell hypothecated articles/ goods etc., to recover its dues.

¶57

(E) Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶58

(F) The Registrar is directed to send the copy of the Judgment and Recovery Certificate to the applicant and defendants.

¶59

(G) File be consigned to the record room.

¶60

Sd/Pronounced in open court. (Dr. J. R. Chauhan) Place: Aurangabad Presiding Officer Date:.17.01.2026 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶61

(OA No.58/2023)

¶62

Page 7 of 7

¶63

[AMBADAS]

Canara Bank v. Sai Cement Product

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sai Cement Product

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

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Shri Balaji Casting

Bank of Baroda versus Rinki Jain

Ms Eana Proteins Pvt. Ltd. versus Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited

Yes Bank versus Jogi Devi

Amit Enterprises versus Ugro Capital Limited

Maharastra Gramin Bank versus M/s Dnyanai Agro Processing Centre