Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Vijeta Trading

DRT19 Jun 2026TA/121/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed a bank's application to recover an outstanding loan of approximately ₹46.07 Lacs from the principal borrower and a guarantor, ordering a recovery certificate and directing appearance before the Recovery Officer for asset distribution.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹46,07,034/- with interest allowed; joint and several liability declared; recovery certificate issued; appearance before Recovery Officer directed.

Canara Bank versus M/S Vijeta Trading — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 121/2024 Date of Institution: 23.05.2019 Date of Decision: 19.06.2026

¶4

Canara Bank having branch office at Shalamar Road, Jammu.

¶5

……..Applicant Vs.

¶6

M/s Vijeta Trading through its proprietor Mohit Gupta s/o Late Sh. Jagdish Raj Gupta, r/o 1881/11, Nanak Nagar, Jammu.

¶7

Sh. Abhishek Mahajan s/o Late Sh. Jagdish Raj Gupta, r/o 1881/11, Nanak Nagar, Jammu.

¶8

……….Defendants

¶9

Advocates

¶10

Mr. Rishav Gupta proxy counsel for Sh. Gaurav Thakur, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶11

Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 26.08.2025 .

¶12

TA for the Recovery of ₹46,07,034/- with interest @11.85% with monthly rests from 23.05.2019.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

On 23.05.2019, Canara Bank filed the suit for the recovery of ₹46,07,034/- with interest against M/s Vijeta Trading and another (defendants) in the Court of District Court, Jammu. However, vide order dated 24.05.2023, this suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge, (Commercial Court), Jammu, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 06.04.2016, it had granted a loan of ₹35.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its then proprietor Smt. Vijeta Gupta in the form of C.C Limit for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.2 had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.4 of the application). Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor for the aforementioned limit vide dated 26.05.2016.

¶16

¶17

2A. In September of 2017, at the request of the defendants, Mr. Mohit Gupta became the proprietor of Defendant no.1 and the same was agreed upon by the Bank. On 20.09.2017, Bank renewed the existing limit at ₹35.00Lacs in the form of C.C. Limit to defendant No.1 through its new proprietor Sh. Mohit Gupta for Business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.2 had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.4 of the application). Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for the renewed C.C. Limit of ₹35.00 Lacs vide Deed of Guarantee dated 20.09.2017.

¶18

2B. Again on 02.01.2018, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing C.C. Limit from ₹35.00Lacs to ₹42.00Lacs. To secure the enhanced limit, defendant No.2 mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.12 of the application). Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for the enhanced limit vide Deed of Guarantee dated 02.07.2018. On 30.04.2019, a sum of ₹46,07,034/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.

¶19

The Civil Court sent summonses to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. After transfer of this suit, summonses were sent to the defendants which were duly served. However, they did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 26.08.2025 , they were proceeded ex parte . 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Naresh Kumar, 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 ₹42.00 Lacs and on 30.04.2019, a sum of ₹46,07,034/- was due.

¶20

¶21

Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹46,07,034/(Rupees Forty Six Lacs Seven Thousand Thirty Four Only) with interest @11.85% per annum with monthly rests from 23.05.2019, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of both the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property(ies) fully detailed in para Nos.3 and 12 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶22

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶23

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 mortgaged property(ies) and hypothecated assets as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act .

¶24

A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties.

¶25

Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 19.06.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Canara Bank v. M/S Vijeta Trading

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Vijeta Trading

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms D S Enterprise And Anr. versus Axis Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri Amal Roy And Anr.

Ved Parkash versus Cholamandalam investment and finance company limited

Indian Bank versus M/S Sai Automobiles

Bank of India versus M/s Vishnu Priya Enterprises

Badal Das and Anr. versus Aditya Birla Finance Limited and Anr.