Allowed

Canara Bank v. Lalaji Enterprises

DRT29 May 2026TA/314/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Canara Bank under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993. In an ex-parte proceeding, the court directed the defendant to pay the outstanding loan amount with interest within 30 days, allowing for recovery from hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs. 55,91,622 along with pendentelitel and future interest @12.40% per annum within 30 days; recovery certificate issued for enforcement.

Canara Bank versus Lalaji Enterprises — Consumer Protection | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No. 314 of 2022

¶2

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi 4th floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

¶3

Presiding Officer: Shri Govind Ballabh Sharma

¶4

T.A. No. 314 of 2022

¶5

Canara Bank

¶6

Aggarwal Central Plaza Gf-Pf, Plot 7, DDA Community Centre Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Lalji Enterprises Through its sole proprietress Smt.Gayatri Devi Khasra No.636 & 641, Near Main Road Siraspur, New Delhi-110042

¶9

Also at:

¶10

M/s Lalji Enterprises Through its sole proprietress Smt.Gayatri Devi

¶11

B-51, Lawrence Road Industrial Area Delhi-110035

¶12

Also at:

¶13

M/s Lalji Enterprises Through its sole proprietress D-272, Ground Floor, Mam Chand Marg Khumar Wald Gali, Rampura, New Delhi-110035

¶14

Also at:

¶15

M/s Lalji Enterprises Through its sole proprietress F-7A, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi-85

¶16

Defendant

¶17

Present: Sh.Anshuman Srivastava, Counsel for applicant bank

¶18

Date of Reserve: 11.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 29.05.2026

Sat--

T.A. No. 314 of 2022

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 16.11.2019 through Sh.Hemant Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.55,91,622/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lacs Ninety One Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Two only) as on 19.09.2019 together with pendentelite and future interest @10.40% per annum along with penal interest @2% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing this application till the date of its realization and costs. Further, the name of Sh. Rajesh Kumar was substituted as new authorized representative in place of erstwhile ARs of the applicant bank.

¶23

The brief facts of the case are that defendant being proprietorship of Mrs.Gayatri Devi in the canvas bag manufacturing business was sanctioned Cash Credit facility of Rs.20.00 lacs under MSME scheme on 25.06.2015 against hypothecation of stock and the applicant bank further sanctioned Term Loan facility of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) on 11.09.2015 for purchase of machinery @11.15% interest per annum with monthly rests against hypothecation of chargeable stocks and book debts covered under CGTMSE scheme. On the request of defendant, the applicant bank enhanced Cash Credit facility from Rs.20.00 lacs to Rs.30.00 lacs on 15.09.2016 @10.40% interest.

¶24

That in order to avail the credit facilities, the defendant submitted loan applications & Sanction Memorandum, Request for Overdraft Facilities, Letter of Undertaking, Pronote, Cash Credit Agreement, Deed of Hypothecation re: Machinery,

¶25

T.A. No. 314 of 2022

¶26

Sanction Memorandum, Letter of Renewal, Supplemental Agreement, Pronote etc. in favour of the applicant bank on 30.06.2015 and 16.09.2016 towards the applicant bank.

¶27

The defendant executed Acknowledgement of Debt thereby acknowledging the debt towards the applicant bank on 29.01.2019.

¶28

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facilities, the defendant miserably failed and neglected to pay the interest and installments in the accounts and also failed to maintain financial discipline as per terms and conditions despite various notices and reminders. The applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 16.12.2017 as per RBI guidelines and issued legal demand notice dated 03.01.2018 and 17.05.2018 but the defendant neglected to repay the outstanding dues, hence, the applicant bank has approached this tribunal for recovery of its dues.

¶29

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendant and despite proper service, the defendant has chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 20.04.2026, the defendant has been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal nor written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed.

¶30

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Hemant Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney, Application form for Loan to MSE Sanction Memorandums, Particulars of the guarantor and Particulars of Assets standing in the name of Borrower, Request for Overdraft Facilities, Letter of Undertaking, Pronote, Cash

¶31

Sci

¶32

T.A. No. 314 of 2022

¶33

Credit Agreement, Deed of Hypothecation, Supplemental Agreement, Letter of Renewal, Acknowledgement of Debt and Security, Pronote, Recall Notices dated 03.01.2018 & 17.05.2018, Legal Demand Notice & Postal Receipts, Statements of Account marked as Exhibit AW-1/1 to Exhibit AW-1/17.

¶34

The applicant bank has fully corroborated the averments made in the O.A. Even otherwise the whole case of the applicant bank is based on the documents and the same have been duly proved.

¶35

The case filed by the applicant bank gone unrebutted and there is no question of disbelieving the case of the applicant bank and the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

¶36

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.

¶37

ORDER

¶38

I, allow this OA and direct the defendant to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days, a sum of Rs.55,91,622/(Rupees Fifty Five Lacs Ninety One Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Two only) as on 19.09.2019 together with pendentelite and future interest @12.40% per annum with monthly rests from the date of filing of this application till the date of realization along with costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stocks etc. In case of shortfall / default, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendant.

¶39

T.A. No. 314 of 2022

¶40

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi.

¶41

(III) Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 28.072026.

¶42

(IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost.

¶43

. Ste` r. - ,, (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶44

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 29.05.2026

Canara Bank v. Lalaji Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Lalaji Enterprises

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

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Aby Abraham

RRaju Kalidoss versus Canara Bank

Sajan S versus Yes Bank

Vinod Kumar Gupta versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Marvel Metals Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Mr B S Girisha versus Dcb Bank Limited