Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Travel Easy

DRT3 Jul 2026TA/218/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of ₹66,77,341/- with interest against two defendants. The bank proved the loan advance and default via evidence despite the defendants appearing ex parte. The Tribunal issued a recovery certificate and nominated the date for asset distribution.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹66,77,341/- with interest @12.65% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued; Distribution of sale proceeds of hypothecated assets ordered.

Canara Bank versus M/S Travel Easy — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 218/2023

¶4

Date of Institution: 04.03.2016 Date of Decision: 03.07.2026

¶5

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

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s Travel Easy Haji Shopping Complex Maharaja Bazar, Amira Kadal, Srinagar, through its proprietor Irfan Manzoor Darzi.

¶9

Irfan Manzoor Darzi s/o Late Manzoor Ahmed Darzi, r/o 141, Rose Lane Colony, Chanapora, Srinagar.

¶10

……….Defendants

¶11

Advocates

¶12

Sh. Iqbal Mohd., Counsel for the applicant bank. Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 21.03.2025 .

¶13

TA for the Recovery of ₹66,77,341/- with interest @12.65% per annum with monthly rests from 04.03.2016.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

On 04.03.2016, Canara Bank, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹66,77,341/- with interest against M/s Travel Easy and another (defendants) in the Court of Principal District Judge, Srinagar. However, vide order dated 14.12.2022, Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar, transferred this suit to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶16

Bank’s case is that on 18.11.2014, 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.1 had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para No.3 of the application). Again on 25.02.2015, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing

¶17

¶18

limit from ₹50.00 Lacs to ₹60.00 Lacs. The loan was chargeable to interest @12.65% per annum with monthly rests. On 29.02.2016, a sum of ₹66,77,341/- 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 21.03.2025, 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 loan of ₹60.00 Lacs and on 29.02.2016, a sum of ₹66,77,341/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹66,77,341/(Rupees Sixty Six Lacs Seventy Seven Thousand Three Hundred Forty One Only) with interest @12.65% per annum with monthly rests from 04.03.2016, 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. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 04.08.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the

¶20

¶21

hypothecated assets as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the

¶22

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: 03.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Canara Bank v. M/S Travel Easy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Travel Easy

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

Hdfc Bank versus M/s. Ksa Timber Mart

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Aarush Sales Corporation

Ms Thakur Dass and Sons versus State Bank of India

Gian Kaur versus Punjab National Bank

Dina Nath versus Indian Bank

Narinder Pal Singh versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited