Allowed

Canara Bank v. Reeta Jain

DRT21 Feb 2026OA/978/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of dues from the respondent who was absent. The tribunal directed the issuance of a recovery certificate for the principal amount, pendent lite interest, and future interest recoverable from hypothecated assets and other properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs.60,76,750/- with interest within 30 days; recovery certificate to be issued forthwith to Recovery Officer.

Canara Bank versus Reeta Jain — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

O.A. No.978 of 2022

¶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. 978 of 2022

¶5

Canara Bank

¶6

Vikash Deep Building, DIDT Centre Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ms Reeta Jain d/o Sh.Tara Chand Jain Proprietor of PBR Enterprises B-2687, DSIIDC Narela Industrial Complex North West, New Delhi-110040

¶9

Also at:

¶10

Ms Reeta Jain d/o Sh.Tara Chand Jain C-608, Saraswati Vihar, Opp. Rama Market Pitampura, Delhi-110034

¶11

Also at:

¶12

vls Reeta Jain d/o Sh.Tara Chand Jain GF-2549, Sec-B, Narela Industrial Complex Narela, New Delhi-110040

¶13

Also at:

¶14

Ms Reeta Jain d/o Sh.Tara Chand Jain A-176, Sudershan Park, New Delhi-110015

¶15

Defendant

¶16

Present: Sh.Dhananjay Kumar Sinha, Counsel for applicant bank

¶17

Date of Reserve: 27.01.2026

¶18

Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2026

¶19

FINAL ORDER

¶20

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 02.11.2022 through Shri Tunni Lal Soni, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19(1) of

O.A. No.978 of 2022

ecovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of Rs.60,76,750/Rupees Sixty Lacs Seventy Six Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty •nly) as on 29.01.2022 along with pendentelite and future nterest as agreed between the parties from the date of filing •f this application till the date of realization and costs.

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of efendant as proprietress of M/s PBR Enterprises vide loan pplication dated 06.05.2014, the applicant bank sanctioned D SME limit of Rs.40.00 lacs (Rupees Forty lacs only) 11.45% interest on 06.05.2014, GECL Loan of Rs.5.00 lacs o be repaid in 36 EMIs on 06.06.2020 and GECL (Exten) loan •f Rs.2.50 lacs on 30.10.2021 @9.25% interest per annum to e repaid in 48 EMIs against hypothecation of stocks and book ebts.

¶26

That in order to avail the loan facilities, the defendant xecuted Sanction Letter, Request for Overdraft Facility, Cash redit Agreement, Pronote, Letter of Evidencing Execution of ocuments, Certificate of Loan Papers Pronote, Take Delivery etter to DPN, Agreement cum Deed of Hypothecation, ndertaking, Guarantee Agreement and Certificates of Loan apers on 06.05.2014, 29.01.2020, 06.06.2020 and 0.10.2021 etc. with the applicant bank.

¶27

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant failed to omply with the terms and conditions and failed to maintain inancial discipline. Ultimately, the applicant bank calling upon he defendant to pay the entire outstanding dues but the • •efendant did not clear the dues. The applicant bank classified

sa-

O.A. No.978 of 2022

the account as NPA on 29.01.2022 as per RBI guidelines and issued legal demand notice dated 03.06.2022 but neglected by the defendant, hence approached this Tribunal for recovery of heir dues.

¶32

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and .espite of proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent rom the proceedings. As per order dated 01.04.2025, the

¶33

•efendant has been proceeded ex-parte & no affidavit of assets ave been filed by the defendant.

¶34

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its

¶35

vidence by filing the copies of security documents such as ower of Attorney, Sanction Letter, Request for Overdraft acility, Cash Credit Agreement, Pronote, Letter of Evidencing xecution of Documents, Certificate of Loan Papers, Pronotes, ake Delivery Letters to DPN, Agreements cum Deed of ypothecation, Undertakings, Guarantee Agreement and ertificates of Loan Papers, Legal Notice, Certified Statement

¶36

• f Accounts marked as page no.1 to 178.

¶37

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments ade in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the pplicant bank is based on the documents and the same have een duly proved.

¶38

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and

¶39

here is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant ank and applicant bank has proved its case beyond

¶40

easonable doubts

¶41

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

O.A. No.978 of 2022

ORDER

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the pplicant bank within a period of 30 days, a sum of s.60,76,750/- (Rupees Sixty Lacs Seventy Six Thousand even Hundred Fifty only) together with pendentelite and uture interest @11.45% per annum with monthly rest from he date of filing of this application till the date of realization, ailing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the ale of hypothecated stocks and book debts etc. In case of hortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable nd immovable property/assets of the defendant.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

2-c) )-‘

¶50

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

¶51

Dictated and pronounced in open court) ated: 21.02.2026

¶52

Canara Bank v. Reeta Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Reeta Jain

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

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

Canara Bank versus Mr. Haneef Mohd