CANARA BANK vs Sh Satbir Singh yadav Prop Ms SVR EXIM on 12 October 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 29.08'20L7 through Sh' Jagdish Singh DharamshaKu, Branch Manager of the applicant ban( underSectionlgoftheRDBAct,lgg3againstthesole defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs'47'40'6541' together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @12.90o/o from date of filing of this O'A' titl the realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of sole defendan! the applicant bank sanctioned OCC Limit Facility of Rs.40,00,000/-, vide sanction letter dated 22.0g.20t5. The sole defendant executed all necessary loaning documents on 30'09'2015'

3. It is fufther submitted that the sole defendant enjoyed and utilized the Loan facilities' but faited to financial disci line and failed to rePaY the Mr. Kumar Vishwajeet, Counsel appears for applicant bank. iSrE J"f"nOunt is eparte, since, 08'03'2018' maintain the so

TANO. 1346of2022

due amounts. The applicant bank requested the sole defendant to regularize the loan ac@unt by visits and letters, but there was no response from the sole defendant. Hence, the account was classified as NPA dated 28.02.2017. The applicant bank served a recall notice dated 24.05.20t7 to the sole defendant but failed to recover the same Thus, the present O'A'fl"A' is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues'

4. On notjce by this Tribunal, sole defendant failed to put appearance at all, despite service' Accordingly' the sole defendant was proceeded against exparte on 08.03.2018.

5. The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Jagdish Singh DharamshaKu' Branch Manager of the applicant bank as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-14, which have gone unchallenged and un- rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant stands fully established against the sole defendant with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount'

6. After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts' The evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the sole defendant by not placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence and documents filed by the appticant bank documents. based upon the written/Printed In the light of the above discussions' the present T'A'

ORDER

deserves to be allowed'

TANO. r346of2022 3

1) I hereby allow this T'A' of the applicant bank and direct the sole defendant to pay to the applicant bank within30daysfromtoday,asumofRs'47'40'6541-along with cost, expenses and interest @11'40o/o from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T'A till the date of realization. Z) In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the sole defendant.

3) Recovery Ceftificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery fficer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il' Delhi'

4) The registry of this Tribunal is hereby dirccted to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the parties.

5) Parties are directed to appear before the l-d' Recovery fficer, DRT-II, Delhi on t4'12'2026' Pending lAs, if any, stand disPosed of' File be consigned to records' 9DL q I Date 12.t0.2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR This judgement pronounced in oPen court' SUSHIL PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi has been signed, dated and GI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT.II, DCIhi Date : 12.10.2026 ( .t/1. r.l

( -.-.-p.(10