Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Manju Enterprises and Ors.

DRT21 Feb 2026TA/732/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Tribunal allowed an ex-parte original application for recovery of a loan of Rs. 11,21,546/- along with interest. The court directed the defendants to pay the amount within 30 days and instructed the issuance of a recovery certificate to the Debt Recovery Officer.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.11,21,546/- plus interest within 30 days; recovery certificate to be issued to the Recovery Officer.

Canara Bank versus M/S Manju Enterprises and Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

T.A. No.732 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. 732 of 2022

¶5

Canara Bank BJ-21, Shalimar Bagh Delhi-110088 Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s Manju Enterprises Through its Proprietor Shri Ram Niwas Panchal Plot No.102/G, Sector-3 DSIIDC Bawana, Delhi

¶8

Sh.Ram Niwas Panchal s/o Sukhbir Singh H.No.1/2289-B, Mandoli Road Ram Nagar, Shandara, Delhi-32 Defendants

¶9

Present: Shri Naman Shukla, Counsel for the applicant bank

¶10

Date of Reserve: 03.02.2026

¶11

Date of Pronouncement: 21.02.2026

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank on 01.06.2019 before DRT-III, Delhi & then transferred to DRT-I Delhi through under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Bankruptcy Act,1993 against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,21,546/- (Rupees Eleven lacs Twenty One thousand Five Hundred Forty Six only) as on 29.05.2019 together with pendentelite and future interest 010.70% per annum with monthly rest plus 2% penal interest from 30.05.2019 till its realization with costs.

¶14

cd-

¶15

T.A. No.732 of 2022

¶16

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 through its proprietor being defendant no.2, the applicant bank sanctioned Working Capital Credit facility of Rs.8.50 Lacs (Rupees Eight Lacs Fifty Thousand only) @12.45% interest subject to change as per RBI guidelines for manufacturing of sanitary goods against hypothecation of stocks and book debts under PMMY scheme on 04.08.2016 covered under CGTMSE scheme. The defendants agreed to pay @2% penal interest in case of delay in repayment of interest.

¶17

That in order to avail the loan facility, the defendant no.1 through defendant no.2 being proprietor submitted loan application and executed Request for Overdraft facility NF-372, Pronote NF-480, Cash Credit Agreement NF-795, Agreement of Hypothecation NF-723, Letter of Undertaking NF-721, Letter by Defendants dated 04.08.2016 with the applicant bank.

¶18

It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the aforesaid loan facility, the defendants failed to honor its commitments to make the interest deposited in the account inspite of repeated request and reminders as per sanction. The applicant bank declared the account as NPA on 48.10.2018 and issued recall notice dated 29.052019 but defendants neglected, hence, the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

¶19

Notices of this O.A. were issued to the defendants and despite of proper service, the defendants have chosen to absent from the proceedings. As per order dated 12.11.2025, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as not appeared before the Tribunal and even no written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have been filed by the defendants.

¶20

T.A. No.732 of 2022

¶21

The defendants executed letter of acknowledgement of Debt and Security dated 31.10.2018 towards the applicant bank.

¶22

In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Ms Kavita Rani, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Power of Attorney Ex.AW1/1, Loan Application with necessary documents Ex.AW1/2, Sanction Letter Ex.AW1/3, Request for Overdraft facility NF372 Ex.AW1/4, Pronote NF-480 Ex.AW1/5, Cash Credit Agreement NF-795 Ex.AW1/6, Agreement of Hypothecation NF-723 Ex.AW1/7, Letter of Undertaking Ex.AW1/8, Letter dated 04.08.2016 Ex.AW1/9, Letter of Acknowledgement of Debt & Security NF-760 Ex.AW1/10, Recall Notice Ex.AW-1/11, Certified Statement of Account Ex.AW1/12.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant hank within a period of 30 days, jointly and severally, a sum of Rs.11,21,546/- (Rupees Eleven lacs Twenty One

¶28

T.A. No.732 of 2022

¶29

thousand Five Hundred Forty Six only) as on 29.05.2019 12.70% interest per annum pendentelite from 30.05.2019 till the date of realization failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stock & book debts. In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants.

¶30

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

¶31

(Ill) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 22.04.2026.

¶32

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

¶33

26" (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI

¶34

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) pated: 21.02.2026

¶35

Canara Bank v. M/S Manju Enterprises and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Manju Enterprises and Ors.

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

Sakeena versus Cherpalcheri Cooperative Urban Bank

Jainy Jenson versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Abdul Sathar Pookkattil versus South Indian Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S S.F. Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Reeta Jain

Punjab National Bank versus M/S J.J. India