Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S 999 Fitness Club and Spa

DRT18 Jun 2026TA/108/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an appeal for recovery of a term loan of ₹23,16,638/- advanced by Canara Bank to M/s 999 Fitness Club and Spa, which was proceeded ex parte due to non-appearance of the respondent. The order directed issuance of a recovery certificate and appearance before the Recovery Officer.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹23,16,638/- with interest @14% per annum with monthly rests from 10.11.2017 issued with costs; Recovery Certificate to be issued.

Canara Bank versus M/S 999 Fitness Club and Spa — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 108/2024 Date of Institution: 10.11.2017 Date of Decision: 18.06.2026 Canara Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Janipur, Jammu. ……..Applicant Vs.

¶4

M/s 999 Fitness Club and Spa, Prop. Sumeet Pal Singh, r/o Sunjwan Morh, opp. Wave Mall, Narwal Bye Pass, Jammu .

¶5

……….Defendant

¶6

Advocates

¶7

Mr. Vipul Dharmani proxy counsel for Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶8

Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 20.03.2026 .

¶9

TA for the Recovery of ₹23,16,638/- with interest @14% per annum with monthly rests from 10.11.2017.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

On 10.11.2017, Canara Bank, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹23,16,638/- with interest against M/s 999 Fitness Club and Spa (defendant) in the Court of District Judge, Jammu. However, vide order dated 10.05.2023, this suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge, (Commercial Court), Jammu, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶12

Bank’s case is that on 28.05.2015, it had granted Term Loan of ₹24.00 Lacs under Canara MSE Unnati Scheme to defendant through its proprietor Sumeet Pal Singh in the form of Term Loan for business purpose. To secure the loan, the proprietor of the Defendant had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para No.3 of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @14% per annum with monthly rests. On 25.02.2017, a sum of ₹23,16,638/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.

¶13

¶14

The Civil Court sent summonses to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. After transfer summonses were sent to the defendants which were duly served. However, they did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 20.03.2026, they were proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Mohit Padhiar, Authorized Officer, along with the original loan and 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 ₹24.00 Lacs and on 25.02.2017, a sum of ₹23,16,638/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹23,16,638/(Rupees Twenty Three Lacs Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred Thirty Eight Only) with interest @14% per annum with monthly rests from 10.11.2017, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of hypothecated assets fully detailed in para No.3 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 20.07.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the hypothecated assets 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: 18.06.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Canara Bank v. M/S 999 Fitness Club and Spa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S 999 Fitness Club and Spa

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

Mr Sandeep Mandal versus Punjab National Bank

Ms Talukdar Pharmacy versus Axis Bank

Shadab Akhtar Abdul Shakil versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Mohd Rizwan

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Allied Protection and Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Pawan Kumar Sinhal versus Indian Bank