Allowed

Canara Bank v. Smt. Bimla Devi

DRT4 Aug 2026TA/107/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this DRD-I recovery application, Canara Bank sought recovery of a term loan defaulting. The tribunal examined evidence confirming the loan advance and outstanding dues. The bank proved its case, leading to an order for recovery and issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.31,22,984.48/- with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued; Appearances before Recovery Officer fixed.

Canara Bank versus Smt. Bimla Devi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 107/2024

¶4

Date of Institution: 13.11.2021 Date of Decision: 04.08.2026

¶5

Canara Bank, Branch at Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.

¶6

...Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Smt. Bimla Devi W/o Sh. Jagdish Raj R/o Plot No.277, Krishna Vihar, Janipur Colony, Jammu.

¶9

...Defendant

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Sh. Rajan Puri, Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Defendant – ex parte.

¶12

TA for the Recovery of Rs.31,22,984.48/- with interest @10.45% per annum with monthly rests from 13.11.2021.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

On 13.11.2021, Canara Bank filed the suit for the recovery of Rs.31,22,984.48/- with interest against Smt. Bimla Devi (defendant) in the Court of the Learned Principal District Judge, Jammu. However, vide order dated 17.03.2023, this suit was transferred by the Court of the Additional District Judge (Commercial Court), Jammu, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 01.02.2018, it had granted a Term Loan of Rs.30.00 lacs to the defendant for vehicle purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant had hypothecated her vehicle bearing Registration No. UP17AT5347 (fully detailed in the Hypothecation Deed: Annexure P-4). The loan was chargeable to interest @10.45% per annum with monthly rests. The defendant had acknowledged her liability towards the debt on 27.10.2021. On 25.10.2021, a sum of Rs.31,22,984.48/- was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, this suit.

¶16

¶17

Summons was sent to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. However, the defendant did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 07.07.2022 of the Court of the Additional District Judge (Commercial Court), Jammu, defendant was proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Deepak Mehra, Branch Manager, along with the loan and original security documents. 5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of Rs.30.00 lacs and on 25.10.2021, a sum of Rs.31,22,984.48/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the application of the Bank for the recovery of Rs.31,22,984.48/- (Rupees Thirty-One Lacs Twenty-Two Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty-Four and Paise Forty-Eight Only) with interest @10.45% per annum with monthly rests from 13.11.2021, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated vehicle (fully detailed in the Hypothecation Deed: Annexure P-4), as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 07.09.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the hypothecated vehicle as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act . 10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties. Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 04.08.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh HARSH

Canara Bank v. Smt. Bimla Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Smt. Bimla Devi

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

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Walkers Village and Ors.

Mr. Pukhraj Gowardhanram Mandan versus Yavatmal Urban Co-Operative Bank

Mr Wahabkhan Yasinkhan Pathan and One versus Yavatmal Urban Co-Operative Bank

Shri Damjeet Singh versus Indian Overseas Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Rajlakshmi Enterpriseand Ors.

Punjab National Bank versus Mr Bishnupada Bhowmik And Ors.