Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Brand Boss and Another

DRT17 Mar 2026OA/909/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte hearing, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues. The court validated the loan documents and ordered the respondents to pay the principal amount along with current and future simple interest at 8% p.a., authorizing recovery via hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 22,84,990.72 with interest @8% p.a. from filing date; recovery from hypothecated assets permitted; parties to appear before Recovery Officer.

Canara Bank versus M/S Brand Boss and Another — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 909/2024

¶3

PRESIDED OVER BY MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

DATE OF INSTITUTION: 18.07.2024

¶5

DATE OF DECISION: 17.03.2026

¶6

Canara Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act-V of 1970, having its Head Office at 112, J.C. Road, Bangaluru, Karnataka & amongst other places at Overseas Branch, Grand Trunk Road, near Dada Motors, Ludhiana (erstwhile known as Canara Bank, SME Branch, Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana) through its one of the officers of the branch namely Sh. Pawan Kumar

¶7

……..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s Brand Boss, proprietorship concern of Sh. Sachin Kumar having its office at F114, New Shiv Puri, Sekhewal, Ludhiana141008.

¶10

Sh. Sachin Kumar S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar, proprietor of M/s Brand Boss, R/o 553, Street No 9, Nirmal Nagar, Dugri, VTC Basant Avenue, Ludhiana-141013.

¶11

….……Defendants

¶12

Advocates:

¶13

Argued by Sh. Sandesh Arora, Advocate for the applicant (through VC)

¶14

Defendants already ex-parte vide order dated 09.02.2026

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

Present Original Application was instituted by the applicant under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against the defendants for recovery of Rs.22,84,990.72 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety and Paise Seventy Two Only). The Original Application has been filed through Sh. Pawan Kumar, Officer of the applicant who is competent to institute

¶17

2 OA /909/2024 CANARA BANK VS. M/S BRAND BOSS AND ANOTHER

¶18

the Original Application vide Power of Attorney dated 01.03.2018, which is Annexure A1 to this OA.

¶19

The brief facts of the OA that the defendant no. 1 through proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant to grant Cash Credit Limit of Rs.20.00 Lacs under CGTMSE scheme for manufacturing and trading of Readymade Garments vide Loan Application dated 02.06.2022, which is Annexure A2 to this OA. Thereafter, the defendant no. 1 through proprietor defendant no. 2 approached the applicant for renewal of the limit. Letter of renewal dated 02.06.2022, which is Annexure A21 to this OA.

¶20

The applicant sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 20.00 Lacs vide Sanction memorandum dated 24.02.2021, which is Annexure A3 to this OA and terms and conditions were duly accepted by the defendants. Thereafter, the limit was renewed by the applicant vide sanction letter dated 02.06.2022, which is Annexure A19 to this OA. and renewal sanction letter dated 02.06.2022, which is Annexure A19 to this OA and the terms & conditions are accepted by defendant. 4. Defendant no. 1 through proprietor defendant no. 2 hypothecated the stocks and book debts, vide Cash Credit Agreement dated 01.03.2021 which is Annexure A5 to this OA. Agreement Re: Advances against Book Debts as primary security dated 01.03.2021 which is Annexure A6 to this OA. Documents executed : Subordination Agreement of loan dated 01.03.2021, which is Annexure A4 to this OA; Letter of Undertaking/Consent dated 01.03.2021, which is Annexure A7 to this OA; Undertaking, Undertaking regarding interest, which are Annexures A8 and A9 to this OA; Specimen signature card dated 01.03.2021 which is Annexure A10 to this OA; Letter of proprietorship dated 01.03.2021, which is Annexure A11 to this OA; Pronote dated 01.03.2021, which is Annexure A12 to this OA; Letter of undertaking re: loans/advances dated 01.03.2021, which is

¶21

3 OA /909/2024 CANARA BANK VS. M/S BRAND BOSS AND ANOTHER

¶22

Annexure A13 to this OA; Request for Overdraft facilities dated 01.03.2021, which is Annexure A14 to this OA; Udhyam Registration Certificate dated 16.03.2022, which is Annexure A15 to this OA; Aadhar Card and Pan Card of defendant no. 2, which is Annexure A16 to this OA; Letter evidencing execution of documents dated 01.03.2021, which is Annexure A17 to this OA; Certificate of loan papers obtained dated 01.03.2021, which is Annexure A18 to this OA; Letter of Undertaking/Consent dated 02.06.2022, which is Annexure A20 to this OA; Letter of proprietorship dated 02.06.2022, which is Annexure A22 to this OA; Letter of Undertaking, which is Annexure A23 to this OA; Acknowledgment of Debt and Security dated 02.06.2022, which is Annexure A24 to this OA; Letter evidencing execution of documents dated 02.06.2022, which is Annexure A25 to this OA; Certificate of loan papers obtained dated 02.06.2022, which is Annexure A26 to this OA; Notice dated 18.10.2023, which is Annexure A26A to this OA; Statement of account, which is Annexure A27(Colly) to this OA; Stock Statement dated 31.03.2022, which is Annexure A28 to this OA; Certificate under Bankers Book Evidence Act, which is Annexure A29 tot this OA. 5. The loan account became irregular and was classified as NPA and after adjusting debit and credit entries in loan account there was a debit of Rs.22,84,990.72 which is recoverable and the defendants were served recall notices but they did not repay the outstanding amount, therefore, the applicant requested to accept the application and to issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 6. The defendants were served notices to appear before this Tribunal but no one appeared on behalf of defendants and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 09.02.2026. 7. In support of the OA, affidavit of Sh. Pawan Kumar, Officer, Canara Bank, h as been filed.

¶23

4 OA /909/2024 CANARA BANK VS. M/S BRAND BOSS AND ANOTHER

¶24

Heard ex-parte arguments and perused record.

¶25

It was argued by learned counsel through video conferencing that in view of the documentary evidence brought on record which had gone unrebutted, the applicant had proved its case. From the perusal of all the Annexures A1 to A29 to this OA, it is proved that the defendant no. 1 through its proprietor defendant no. 2 approached applicant for availing of the loan facility which was granted to them and for that they had executed all the relevant documents in favour of the bank. The defendants failed to pay back the loan as per terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. Subsequently, account of the defendants was classified as NPA. From the documentary evidence brought on record, it is proved that applicant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 22,84,990.72 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety and Paise Seventy Two Only) along with interest from the defendants, jointly and severally, from the date of filing of the present Original Application till realization of the account.

¶26

In so far as pendente lite and future rate of interest is concerned, the applicant in relief clause has claimed interest @11.90%p.a. with penal interest @2% with monthly rests from 01.05.2024 till the realization.

¶27

The Tribunal is of the considered opinion that sometimes in appropriate cases the prerogative of mercy is the brightest jewel in the crown of the Judge. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the instant case including nature of the mortgaged property/

¶28

hypothecation assets , undertaking of the defendants, quantum of loan and prevalent market rates of interest which have gone drastically downhill in yester years, while exercising the discretion vested in this Tribunal, this Tribunal deems it just and appropriate to grant uniform simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing

¶29

5 OA /909/2024 CANARA BANK VS. M/S BRAND BOSS AND ANOTHER

¶30

of the OA till realization of the amount ordered vide this final order. It is ordered accordingly.

¶31

In the result, the application is allowed declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the applicant a total sum of Rs.22,84,990.72 (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Eighty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety and Paise Seventy Two Only) with costs, current and future simple interest @08.00%p.a. in the loan account from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization of the amount. Accordingly, the applicant shall be entitled to recover aforesaid amount from the sale of hypothecated assets of the defendants in execution proceedings if not sold earlier under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. If the dues of the applicant still remain unsatisfied, it shall be entitled to recover the same by attachment and sale of personal assets of the defendants. The applicant is at liberty to enforce the claim through due process of law. 12. Any other application pending stands disposed of. 13. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly. 14. Parties to appear before Learned Recovery Officer of this Tribunal on 07.04.2026. 15. Copy of this order be given Dasti to the applicant and be sent to defendants through registered/speed post and this order be also uploaded on the official website of this Tribunal and record be consigned. Pronounced by me in the open Tribunal . Dated: 17.03.2026. (MRIDULESH KUMAR SINGH) Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chandigarh

Canara Bank v. M/S Brand Boss and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Brand Boss and Another

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

M/S Shiv Trading Co. and Another versus Uco Bank and Another

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sh. Jagwinder Singh and Others

Messrs Rattan Industries versus Hdfc Bank Limited

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Kulwinder Singh and Another

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Amar Kaur and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sh. Parminder Pal Singh and Others