Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Travel Smart

DRT23 Jun 2026TA/213/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order adjudicated a TCPA for the recovery of ₹85.88 Lacs alleged to be due from the respondents. The DRT accepted the bank's evidence, held the debt acknowledged and outstanding, and allowed the recovery application with costs, emphasizing joint and several liability.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹85,88,323/- with interest and costs through the sale of hypothecated and personal assets.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 213/2023

¶4

Date of Institution: 15.06.2016 Date of Decision: 23.06.2026

¶5

Canara Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Budshah Chowk, Srinagar.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s Travel Smart, Baghwanpora Barbarshah, Srinagar, through its proprietor Ashan Maqbool Dar.

¶9

Ashan Maqbool Dar s/o Mohamad Maqbool Dar, r/o Baghwanpora Barbarshah, Srinagar.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh. Lovish Kukkar proxy counsel for Ms. Kanchan Sehgal, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶13

Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 23.06.2026 .

¶14

TA for the Recovery of ₹85,88,323/- with interest @13.65% per annum with monthly rests from 15.06.2016.

¶15

ORDER

¶16

On 15.06.2016, Canara Bank, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹85,88,323/- with interest against M/s Travel Smart and another (defendants) in the Court of Principal District Judge, Srinagar. However, vide order dated 14.12.2022, this suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶17

Bank’s case is that on 16.06.2014, it had granted C.C. Limit of ₹50.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor defendant No.2 for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.2 had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para No.3 of the application). Again on 13.11.2014, at the request of the defendants, bank restructured the

¶18

¶19

existing C.C. Limit account and converted the outstanding amount into a W.C.T.L. of ₹20.00 Lacs and also granted F.I.T.L. of ₹12.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor defendant No.2 for business purpose. The loans were chargeable to interest @13.65% per annum with monthly rests. The defendants had acknowledged their liability towards the debt on 18.11.2014. On 13.06.2016, a sum of ₹85,88,323/- was due from the defendants. Defendants had acknowledged their liability towards debt on 18.11.2014. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.

¶20

The Civil Court sent summonses to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. However, they did not put in appearance before the Court. Vide order dated 09.11.2021, they were proceeded ex parte. 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of MD. Shahab Akhtar, 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 loans under various schemes and on 13.06.2016, a sum of ₹85,88,323/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹85,88,323/(Rupees Eighty Five Lacs Eighty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Three Only) with interest @13.65% per annum with monthly rests from 15.06.2016, 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.3 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.

¶21

¶22

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 24.07.2026, 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.

¶23

Pronounced in the open court. (A S Narang) Dated: 23.06.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Canara Bank v. M/S Travel Smart

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Travel Smart

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

Axis Bank versus Ashis Kumar

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank versus Nirmala

State Bank of India versus Shri Santosh Kumar Gupta & Anr.

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s Shyam Traders

Bank of India versus Car Laundary

Nataraj S versus Bank of Maharashtra