Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals

CANARA BANK vs M/S SUNSHINE STEEL on 14 July 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

Before SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI, presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi TA No.260 OF 2023

CANARA BANK VS M/S SUNSHINE STEET & ORS

Reserued on

: O3.O6.2026

Prcnounced on = L4.O7.2O26

Canara Bank

Vs.

1. M/s Sunshine Steel

2. Mr. Lal Mohd. Saifi

-Applicant bank

- Defendants

Present: Mr. Puneet Pankaj, Counsel appears for applicant bank.

Defendants are exparte, since, 29.0g.2023.

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 15.09.2021 through Ms. Sonia Jain, Manager of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.33,38,555/- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @13.20olo from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant no.1 is a proprietor ship firm through defendant no.2, the applicant bank sanctioned a Cash Credit Facility of Rs.25,00,000/- under scheme for loans to micro and small enterprises, vide sanction letter dated 09.09.2014. The defendant no.2, in fuftherance of the said sanction, hypothecated the EP

TANO. 260 of 2023

stockand bookdebts.The defendants executed all necessary 'loaning documents on 16.08.2014, t2.09.2014 and 09.09.2014. Again, at the request of defendants, the applicant bank renewed and increased the aforesaid facility of Rs.30,00,000/-, vide sanction letter dated t8.04.20L7. The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents on17.03.2017 and tB.O4.2Ot7. Again, at the request of defendants, the applicant bank renewed the aforesaid facility of Rs.30,00,0001-, vide sanction letter dated L8.07.2020. The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents on 18.07.2020.

3. It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facilities, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts. The applicant 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 classified as NPA on 30.03.2021. The applicant bank served a recall notice dated 18.04.2021 to the defendants but failed to recover the same Thus, the present O.A.[I.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

4. On notice by this Tribunal, defendanb failed to put appearance at all, despite publication. Accordingly, the defendants were'proceeded against expafte on 29.08.2023.

5. The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Ms. Sonia Jain, Manager of the applicant -*tr'-.*

TANO. 260 of 2023

bank as Annexure- A- 1 to Annexure. A-1g, which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant stands fully established against the defendants 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 defendants by not placing any evidence and there ii no question of disbelieving the evidence and documents filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents. In the light of the above discussions, the present T.A. deseryes to be allowed.

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the defendant nos.1 and 2 to pay joinily and severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.33,38,555/- along with cos! expenses and interest @11.20olo from the date of frling of this O.A. which has become T.A till the date of realization.

2) In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of hypothecated assets. In case of shot fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant nos.l and 2. --'*sQ

TA NO. 260 of2023

3) Recovery.Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

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

5) Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhion L4.09.2026. pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. File be consigned to records.

Date: 14.07.2026 (SUSHIL KU ,tl

? r) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court.

r L{ l)l I Date: 74.07.2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, De|hi qs

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead