Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Asra Fruit Agency

DRT23 Jun 2026TA/300/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of principal dues and interest against the respondents, who were proceeding ex parte, mandating the sale of mortgaged and hypothecated assets for payment.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of ₹82,26,612 with interest at 14.75% p.a.; liability declared joint and several; direction to sell mortgaged/hypothecated assets.

Canara Bank versus M/S Asra Fruit Agency — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

TA No: 300/2023

¶4

Date of Institution: 24.04.2021 Date of Decision: 23.06.2026

¶5

Canara Bank having its branches all over India and a branch at Sopore, District Baramulla, Kashmir.

¶6

……..Applicant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s Asra Fruit Agency, Shed No.11, Fud No.7, Fruit Mandi, Sopore. (A sole proprietorship concern- Through its proprietor- Adil Akbar Bhat).

¶9

Adil Akbar Bhat s/o Mohammad Akbar Bhat, r/o Reban, Rehama, Tehsil Watergam (Rafiabad), District Baramulla.

¶10

Mohammad Akbar Bhat s/o Ali Mohammad Bhat, r/o Reban, Rehama, Tehsil Watergam (Rafiabad), District Baramulla.

¶11

Mushtaq Ahmad Bhat s/o Ali Mohammad Bhat, r/o Reban, Rehama, Tehsil Watergam (Rafiabad), District Baramulla.

¶12

Abdul Majeed Bhat s/o Ali Mohammad Bhat, r/o Reban, Rehama, Tehsil Watergam (Rafiabad), District Baramulla.

¶13

……….Defendants

¶14

Advocates

¶15

Mr. Lovish Kukkar proxy counsel for Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶16

Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 04.07.2025 .

¶17

TA for the Recovery of ₹82,26,612/- with interest @14.75% per annum with monthly rests from 24.04.2021.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

On 24.04.2021, Canara Bank, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹82,26,612/- with interest against M/s Asra Fruit Agency and others (defendants) in the Court of Additional District Judge, Sopore. However, vide order dated 16.06.2023, this suit was transferred by the Court of Principal District Judge, Baramulla, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.

¶20

¶21

Bank’s case is that on 24.11.2014, it had granted O.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 Nos.3 and 4 mortgaged their property (fully detailed in para No.8 of the application). Defendant Nos.4 and 5 stood as guarantor for the aforementioned O.C.C. Limit of ₹50.00 Lacs. 2A. Again on 26.02.2016, at the request of the defendants, applicant bank granted Ad-hoc limit of ₹10.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor defendant No.2 for Business purpose. On 16.06.2016, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing O.C.C. Limit from ₹50.00 Lacs to ₹100.00 Lacs. To secure the enhanced limit, defendant Nos.3 and 4 mortgaged their property(ies) (fully detailed in para No.8 of the plaint). Both the loan facilities were chargeable at different rates of interest @14.75% per annum with monthly rests. On 30.09.2017, a sum of ₹82,26,612/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit. 3. The defendants had filed a written statement wherein they have alleged that the documents on record cannot be relied upon as they are styled and manipulated; the plaint if fictitious and fabricated; plaint is insufficiently stamped; a false affidavit has been executed and hence plaint is baseless, vexatious and meritless. 3A. 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 04.07.2025, they were proceeded ex parte. 4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Aushaq Hussain, Branch Manager, along with the original loan and security documents.

¶22

¶23

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 ₹100.00Lacs and on 30.09.2017, a sum of ₹82,26,612/- was due. 6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹82,26,612/(Rupees Eighty Two Lacs Twenty Six Thousand Six Hundred Twelve Only) with interest @14.75% per annum with monthly rests from 24.04.2021, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property(ies) fully detailed in para No.8 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants accordingly. 7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. 8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly. 9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 23.07.2026, 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 . 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: 23.06.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA

Canara Bank v. M/S Asra Fruit Agency

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Asra Fruit Agency

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

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