Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Jai Baba Balak Nath Ji Steel and Fabrications

DRT16 Jul 2026TA/13/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Canara Bank's application for recovery of ₹22,66,304.27 plus interest against M/s Jai Baba Balak Nath Ji Steel & Fabrications and proprietor Sh. Amit Sharma. The Bank proved an outstanding dues on OCCLimit and Term Loans against which hypothecated assets and personal property were made liable.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹22,66,304.27p with interest allowed; liability of both defendants is joint and several; Recovery Certificate issued.

Canara Bank versus M/S Jai Baba Balak Nath Ji… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 13/2023 Date of Institution: 22.08.2022 Date of Decision: 16.07.2026

¶4

Canara Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Maranda, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

¶5

……..Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Jai Baba Balak Nath Ji Steel & Fabrications through its proprietor Sh. Amit Sharma s/o Sh. Balak Ram having its place of Business at Village Rodi, VPO Thakurdwara, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

¶8

Sh. Amit Sharma s/o Sh. Balak Ram, r/o Village Rodi, Post Office Thakurdwara, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

¶9

……….Defendants

¶10

Advocates

¶11

Sh. Lovish proxy counsel for Sh. Neeraj Madaan, Counsel for the applicant bank. None for the defendants.

¶12

TA for the Recovery of ₹22,66,304.27p with interest from 22.08.2022.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

On 22.08.2022, Canara Bank, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹22,66,304.27p with interest against M/s Jai Baba Balak Nath Ji Steel & Fabrications (defendants) in DRT-II, Chandigarh. However, vide order dated 14.02.2023, DRT-II Chandigarh transferred this suit to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶15

Bank’s case is that on 18.11.2014, it had granted O.C.C. Limit of ₹10.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor defendant No.2 for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant no.1 had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Again on 07.01.2016, at the request of the defendants, bank renewed/enhanced the

¶16

¶17

existing O.C.C. Limit from ₹10.00 Lacs to ₹15.00 Lacs. The O.C.C. Limit was renewed from time to time and lastly on 11.09.2020, at ₹15.00 Lacs.

¶18

2a. Again on 16.07.2020, at the request of the defendants, bank granted Term Loan-I of ₹3.00 Lacs under GECL Scheme to defendant No.1 through its proprietor defendant no.2 for business purpose. To secure the Term Loan-I, defendant No.1 hypothecated his assets (fully detailed in para No.3A of the application). Again on 21.06.2021, at the request of the defendants, applicant bank granted Term Loan-II of ₹1.32 Lacs under R.F.I.T.L. Scheme to defendant No.1 through its proprietor defendant No.2 for business purpose. All the loan facilities were chargeable at different rates of interest. On 30.06.2022, a sum of ₹22,66,304.27p was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.

¶19

On 01.12.2023, the defendants were directed to file their written statement and affidavit of assets within 30 days. However, they filed the written statement beyond the stipulated time. On 01.08.2024, the defendants were summoned for the purpose of admission and denial of the documents. The defendants perused the Exhibits A2 to A-43, admitted their signatures but denied the contents. 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Rohit Kumar Verma, Senior Manager, 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 total loan of ₹19.32 Lacs and on 30.06.2022, a sum of ₹22,66,304.27p was due.

¶20

¶21

Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹22,66,304.27p (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Sixty Six Thousand Three Hundred Four and Paise Twenty Seven Only) ₹17,83,293.65p in O.C.C. Limit with interest @8.90% p.a.; ₹3,24,333.62p in Term Loan-I with interest @7.50% p.a.; ₹1,58,677/- in Term Loan-II with interest @13.90% p.a. (all facilities) with monthly rests from 22.08.2022, 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 hypothecated assets fully detailed in para No.3A and 5.12 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.

¶24

Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 18.08.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the hypothecated assets as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act .

¶25

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

¶26

Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 16.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Canara Bank v. M/S Jai Baba Balak Nath Ji Steel and Fabrications

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Jai Baba Balak Nath Ji Steel and Fabrications

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 Pradip Nilkanthrao Deshmukh versus Motilal Oswal Home Finance Limited

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Sunrise Overseas

Mr. Uday Ramesh Lohi(Dead) through Its Legal Heirs Mrs. Mahananda Ramesh Lohi and Mr. Ramesh Mahadeorao Lohi versus M/S Truehome Finance Limited

Sainaba versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

Mohd Mujeeb Khan versus State Bank of India

Central Bank of India versus Mr. Kazi