CANARA BANK vs SATNAM ELECTRIC WORKS on 15 June 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant ank before DRT-III Delhi on 17.06.2020 and then transferred t• DRT-I Delhi under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts and ankruptcy Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of s.49,19,922.11 (Rupees Forty Nine Lacs Nineteen Thousand ine Hundred Twenty Two & paisa Eleven only) as on 6.06.2020 along with pendentelite and future interest Scf

13.60% per annum with monthly rests plus 2% penal interest rom 17.06.2020 till its realization with costs. The brief facts of the case are that the defendant no.1 hrough its proprietor being defendant no.2 engaged in lectrical contract business was enjoying SOD limit of Rs.15.00 I cs from applicant bank and requested for enhancement of redit facility by Rs.25.00 lacs. The applicant bank sanctioned dditional Overdraft facility of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty ive Lacs only) total aggregating to Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees orty Lacs only) on 30.12.2015 @10.95% interest per annum gainst hypothecation of stocks and book debts covered under GTMSE scheme. That in order to avail the loan facility, the defendant no.2 s proprietor of defendant no.1 submitted request letter for nhancement of limit dated 30.12.2015 and executed Sanction etter, Composite Hypothecation Agreement, Power of ttorney, Charge & Hypothecation of Debt Agreement, Letter ated 30.12.2015 for not to Create Charge or Assign or otherwise Transfer of Debt, Letters of Undertaking, ►eclaration, Letter of Proprietorship, Letters/Undertakings for on-cumbrance etc. on 30.12.2015 in favour of the applicant a n k. The defendant no.2 executed acknowledgement of debt nd security documents dated 01.12.2018 confirming all curities offered and documents are still valid and binding and Iso signed letter of Time Barred Debts for Rs.41,46,450.51 by xecuting Demand Promissory Note (ASD-19). Sd-

5. It has been submitted by the applicant bank that after availing the credit facility, the defendants failed to maintain financial discipline and comply with the sanction terms and conditions in order to regularize the account. Ultimately, the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 28.01.2019 as per RBI guidelines and issued legal demand notice dated 16.11.2019 and legal notice on 12.06.2020 but the defendants failed to repay the dues, hence the applicant bank has approached this Tribunal for recovery of their dues.

6. 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 03.02.2026, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte as they have not appeared before the Tribunal and even written statement, evidence and affidavit of assets have not been filed by the defendants.

7. In order to prove its case, the applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Sh.Vikas Kumar, authorized representative of the applicant bank who has proved the documents such as Gazette Notification Exhibit AW-A, Power of Attorney Exhibit AW1/1, Renewal Letter Exhibit AW1/2, Sanction Letter Exhibit AW1/3, Composite Hypothecation Letter Exhibit AW1/4, Power of Attorney Exhibit AW1/5, Hypothecation of Debt Agreement Exhibit AW1/6, Letter dated 30.12.2015 Exhibit AW1/7, Letter of Undertaking Exhibit AW1/8, Declaration Exhibit AW1/9, Letter of Proprietorship Exhibit AW1/10, Letter/Undertaking Exhibit AW1/11 & 12, Acknowledgement of Debt & Security Exhibit AW1/13, Letter for Time Barred Debts Exhibit AW1/14, Legal Notice along with Postal Receipts Exhibit AW1/15(Colly), Legal Demand Notice along with Postal Receipts Exhibit AW1/16(Colly), Statement of Account with Certificate under Banker's Book Evidence Act Ex.AE1/17, Statement of Account of Uncharged Interest Exhibit AW1/18 and Consolidated Statement of Account Exhibit AW1/19.

8. 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 approved.

9. 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.

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

ORDER

I, allow this OA and direct the defendants to pay to the applicant bank within a period of 30 days, jointly or severally, a sum of Rs.49,19,922.11 (Rupees Forty Nine Lacs Nineteen Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Two & paisa Eleven only) as on 16.06.2020 together with pendentelite and future interest @13.60% per annum with monthly rests from 17.06.2020 till the date of its realization and costs; failing which the aforesaid amount shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated stock and book debts etc. 'In case of shortfall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of movable and immovable properties of the defendants. 5d-

(II) The recovery certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Delhi. (III) Parties are directed to appear before the Recovery Officer, DRT I, Delhi on 17.08.2026. (IV) Copies of final order as well as Recovery Certificate be sent to all concerned free of cost. 15.. 5 rt-7176 (GOVIND BALLABH SHARMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, DELHI (Dictated and pronounced in open court) Dated: 15.06.2026