Allowed

Canara Bank v. Anjali Plastic

DRT27 Jul 2026OA/92/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's original application for recovery under the RDB Act. After the defendants failed to appear or file a written statement, the court deemed evidence corroborated and directed the defendants to pay the principal sum along with interest and costs within 30 days. A recovery certificate was issued for enforcement.

What did the court decide?

Directing the defendants to pay Rs.28,76,697.09 with interest and costs within 30 days; issuance of the recovery certificate.

Canara Bank versus Anjali Plastic — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

' O.A. No. 92 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.92 of 2024

Canara Bank

(e-Syndicate Bank)

2154, Outram Line

Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110042

¶9

Applicant

¶10

Versus

¶11

M/s Anjali Plastic Sole Proprietorship firm Kh.No.24/15/02, Gali No.12 Samaypur, Delhi-110042

¶12

Sh.Amit Jain s/o Satender Kumar Jain R/o AE-114, 1st Floor, Shalimar Bagh Delhi-110088 Defendants

¶13

Present: Sh.Abhishek Kr.Singh, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶14

Date of Reserve: 09.07.2026

¶15

Date of Pronouncement: 27.07.2026

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 03.02.2024 under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of Rs.28,76,697.09 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Seventy Six Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Seven & paisa Nine only) as on 30.04.2023 along with pendentelite and future interest @13.65% per annum with monthly rests from 30.04.2023 till the date of its realization with costs.

¶18

¶19

O.A. No. 92 of 2024

¶20

The brief facts of the case are that the defendant no.1 through its proprietor being defendant no.2 engaged in manufacturing of plastic granules was sanctioned SOD limit of Rs.20.00 lacs (Rupees Twenty lacs only) @Bank Rate plus 1.75% interest from applicant bank against hypothecation of all kind of stocks covered under CGTMSE scheme which was enhanced to Rs.23.00 lacs (Rupees Twenty Three Lacs only) @9.15% interest per annum. On the request of defendants, the applicant bank sanctioned Covid Support GECL facility of Rs.2.90 lacs (Rupees Two lacs Ninety Thousand only) to be repaid in 36 EMIs on 18.06.2020. Further, another GECL credit facility of Rs.3.50 lacs (Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Thousand only) was sanctioned on 25.10.2021 to be repaid in 60 EMIs guaranteed by NCGTC in favour of defendants.

¶21

That in order to avail the loan facilities, the defendant no.2 as proprietor of defendant no.1 submitted loan application and executed Sanction Letter, Letter of Proprietorship, ASD-4 Composite Hypothecation Agreement, Declaration on 17.06.2016, Form NF-721, NF-855, NF-373, Agreement cum Deed of Hypothecation and Undertaking on 18.06.2020. Further, defendants executed Sanction Letter dated 02.03.2021, Pronote, Agreement cum Deed of Hypothecation and Link Letter in favour of the applicant bank on 25.10.2021. The defendants executed Sanction letter dated 30.04.2022 and NF-493 Letter of Renewal and NF-760 towards applicant bank.

¶22

The defendants executed Acknowledgement of Debt and Security on dated 26.07.2022 acknowledging the debt of Fs.28,47,684.02 towards the applicant bank.

¶23

O.A. No. 92 of 2024

¶24

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the credit facilities, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and comply with the sanction terms and conditions in order to regularize the account. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 29.05.2023 as per RBI guidelines but the defendants failed to clear the overdue amount, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶25

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 10.12.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendants.

¶26

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Prem Niwas Chandan, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney, Loan Application, Sanction Letters, Letter of Proprietorship, Composite Hypothecation Agreement, Declarations, Loan Applications, NF-855, Agreement cum Deed of Hypothecation, Letter of Undertaking, NF-373, Pronote, Cash Credit Agreement, Link Letter, Pronote, Undertakings, Agreements cum Deed of Hypothecation, NF-493, Letter dated 02.05.2022, NPA Certificate, Acknowledgement of Debt & Security, Letter of Renewal, Statement of Accounts marked as Ex-AW-1/1 to Ex-AW-1/27 (Colly).

¶27

O.A. No. 92 of 2024

¶28

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 approved.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

ORDER

¶32

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, jointly or severally,

¶33

sum of Rs.28,76,697.09 (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs Seventy Six Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Seven & paisa Nine only) as On 30.04.2023 together with pendentelite and future interest p13.65% per annum with monthly rests from 01.05.2023 till the date of its realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stock and book debts etc. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties Of the defendants.

¶34

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

¶35

(III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 25.09.2026.

¶36

¶37

O.A. No. 92 of 2024

¶38

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

¶39

0 2-4

¶40

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

¶41

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 27.07.2026

Canara Bank v. Anjali Plastic

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Anjali Plastic

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

Yes Bank versus Mr Dinesh Damodhar Marsattiwar

Hdfc Bank versus Kaushalya Chandel

Sri Sisir Sen And Anr. versus Idbi Bank

Indusind Bank Limited versus Oplos Medicare Pharmaceuticals Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Nng Import Export Pvt. Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sameer Yadav