Allowed

Canara Bank v. Anjana Jain variety shopping centre

DRT21 May 2026TA/627/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act. The tribunal held that the bank established its claim for dues of approximately Rs. 3.48 crores, including interest, against non-appearing defendants. The original application was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Order for recovery of Rs. 3,48,51,087.33 plus interest and costs from defendants jointly and severally within 30 days; direction for sale of charged/mortgaged assets for recovery.

Canara Bank versus Anjana Jain variety shopping… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

BEfOrc SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI, PrESidiNg OffiCEr Debts Recovery Tribunal_tt, Oettri

¶2

TA No.627 OF 2OZg CANARA BANK VS SMT. ANJANA JAIN & ORS

¶3

Reserued on t 23.04.2026 pronounced on : 2l.OS. 2026

Canara Bank

Vs.

-Applicant bank

Smt. Anjana Jain

¶8

Mr. Jitender Jain

¶9

Defendants

¶10

Present: Ms. Seema Gupta, Counsel appears for applicant bank. Defendants are exparte, since, OS.OZ.2O2O.

¶11

FINAT ORDER

¶12

This originar apprication has been fired by the applicant bank, on Og.OS.2Ol7 through Shri. S.E. Nataraja, Asst. Generar Manager of the appricant bank, under section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,48,51,087.33 together with cost, charges and pendenterite and future interest @r7.500/o from date of firing of this o.A. till the realization in full.

¶13

The brief facts of the case are that at the reguest of the defendant no.1 as proprietor of the firm M/s variety shopping centre, the appricant bank sanctioned a working capitar Facirity (soD) (H) of Rs.300.00 Lakhs, vide sanction retter dated 18.11.2015. The defendant no.2 executed guarantee agreement dated 19.11.2015. The defendant no.1 has executed ail necessary roaning documents on 19.11.2015. The S.T

¶14

¶15

TA NO. 627 of 2023

¶16

defendant no.1 created charge on the immovabre property bearing no. c-214 measuring 326 sg. yds consisting of Entire L*,Zna,3ra Floor with roof rights situated at c-2L4, Gari No.9 & 10, Main Market, Bhajan Pura, Derhi out of Khasra no.37l,viilage Gonda, Gujran Khadir, Ilaqa Shahdara, Delhi belonging to them by agreeing that the appticant bank can hord as security the tiue deeds in respect of the said property deposited by them on 19.11.2015. The defendant no.l arso hypothecated its present and future current and fixed assets as security to the credit facility granted to them by the applicant bank.

¶17

It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facilities, but failed to maintain the financiar disciprine and faired to repay the due amounts. The appricant bank requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the defendants, hence the account was crassified as NpA dated 26.08.20r6. Therefore, the appricant bank seryed a demand notice dated 01.09.2016 to the defendants but faired to recover the same. Thus, the present o.A.rr.A. is preferred by the appricant bank to recover its dues.

¶18

on notice by this Tribunat, the defendants failed to put appearance at a[, despite pubtication. Accordingly, the defendants were proceeded against expafte on 05.02.2020.

¶19

¶20

TA NO. 62T of 2023

¶21

The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of sh. s.E. Nataraja, Asst. Generar Manager of the applicant bank as Paper No.1 to paper No. 10g along with the oA, which have gone unchartenged and un-rebutted' Hence, the case of the appricant bank stands fuily estabrished against the defendants with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

¶22

After perusing the records, this Tribunar is of the view that the appricant bank has proved its case beyond reasonabre doubts. The evidence and documents fired by the appricant bank not rebutted by the defendants by not pracing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence and documents fired by the appticant bank based upon the written/printed docu ments.

¶23

In the right of the above discussions, the present r.A. deseryes to be aflowed.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

I hereby ailow this T.A. of the appricant bank and direct the defendant nos.1 and 2 to pay jointry and severaily to the appricant within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.3,48,51,087.33 atong with cost, expenses and interest @ 72.700/o from the date of firing of this o.A. which has become T.A tiil the date of reatization.

¶26

In case of fairure to deposit the above amount within the stipurated period, the same shail be recovered from the sale of hypothecated assets and the sale of mortgaged property bearing no. C_214 measuring 326 sq. yds consisting of Entire l*,Znd,3ra Floor with roof rights situated at c-2r 4, Gari No.9 & 10,

S--\

TA NO. 627 of 2023

Main Market, Bhajan pura, Derhi out of Khasra no.37z, village Gonda, Gujran Khadir, Iraqa shahdara, Derhi . In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personar movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.1 and 2.

¶31

Recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

¶32

The registry of this Tribunat is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the parties.

¶33

Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery officer, DRT-II, Dethi on2L.07.2026. pending IAs, if dry, stand disposed of.

¶34

File be consigned to records.

¶35

Date :2L.05.2026

¶36

sA^{'</sup> i (susHrL rufi-an ffislocl) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi}

¶37

This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court.

¶38

s) t DAtC :21.05.2026 (SUSHIL KUTtrAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT.II, De|hi

Canara Bank v. Anjana Jain variety shopping centre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Anjana Jain variety shopping centre

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