Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Clean Plast

DRT17 Jun 2026TA/133/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery of a loan of ₹32,63,718.84 p with interest. The court held the bank proved its case and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate for enforcement via sale of mortgaged and other assets under Section 19(20-AB).

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹32,63,718.84p with interest allowed; Recovery Certificate issued for enforcement from mortgaged and personal properties.

Canara Bank versus M/S Clean Plast — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 133/2024 Date of Institution: 09.08.2018 Date of Decision: 17.06.2026 Canara Bank having its branches all over India and a Branch at Karan Bhawan, Shalamar Road, Jammu. ……..Applicant Vs. M/s Clean Plast, Lane No.4, SIDCO Complex, Bari Brahmana, Jammu through Prop. Sh. Yogesh Kohli s/o Sh. Surinder Kohli, r/o 200/7 Talab Tillo, Jammu . ……….Defendant

¶4

Advocates

¶5

Mr. Chirag Bhagat proxy counsel for Ms. Anuradha Gupta, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶6

Defendant- ex parte vide order dated 26.08.2021 (Jammu) . TA for the Recovery of ₹32,63,718.84p with interest @14.40% per annum with monthly rests from 09.08.2018.

¶7

ORDER

¶8

On 09.08.2018, Canara Bank, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹32,63,718.84p with interest against M/s Clean Plast (defendant) in the Ld. Principal District Judge Jammu. However, vide order dated 09.05.2023, this suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶9

Bank’s case is that on 27.02.2012, it had granted a loan of ₹22.00 Lacs to the defendant through its proprietor Yogesh Kohli in the form of O.C.C Limit for business purpose. The limit was renewed from time to time and lastly on 17.03.2016. To secure the loan, Yogesh Kohli had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.6 of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @14.40% per annum with monthly rests. On 31.07.2018, a sum of ₹32,63,718.84p was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.

¶10

¶11

The Civil Court sent summonses to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. Defendant did not put in appearance before Civil Court which proceeded ex parte on 26.08.2021. 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Naresh Kumar, Branch 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 the loan of ₹22.00 Lacs and on 31.07.2018, a sum of ₹32,63,718.84p was due. 6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹32,63,718.84p (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs Sixty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Eighteen and Paise Eighty Four Only) with interest @14.40% per annum with monthly rests from 09.08.2018, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.6 of the application 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. Party is directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 20.07.2026 , who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged land and 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: 17.06.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Canara Bank v. M/S Clean Plast

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Clean Plast

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

H S Agro Layer Farm And Ors. versus Indian Bank

Breakfast through its owner kishore Meshram and others versus Fullerton India Credit Company

Shri Rajesh Jankilal Bundiwal versus Repco Home Finance Limited

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S Bunty General Store

State Bank of India versus Sri Jiban Kumar Ghosh

State Bank of India versus Sri Debnkar Dey And Ors.