CANARA BANK vs SH RAHUL KUMAR GUPTA on 12 August 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 28.12.2018 through Sh. Jai Pal Singh Chandelia, Officer of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the sole defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,93,979/- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @12.90o/o p.a. from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the defendant while availing the credit facility of Rs.07.00 Lacs under the head of Open Cash Credit Limit, had approached the applicant bank on April, 2016 for renewal of the same, I

TA NO. 1313 of 2023

for his . business of manufacturing of threads, under CGTMSE; which was considered by the applicant bank and had pleased to sanction an Open Cash Credit Limit of Rs.7.00 Lacs. The sole defendant executed all necessary loaning documents on 19.02.2015, 19.10.2015 and 18.04.2016. The defendant had availed and utilized the Open Cash Credit Limit Facility from time to time for his business requirements.

3. It is further submitted that the sole defendant 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 sole defendant to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the sole defendant. Hence, the account was classified as NPA dated 21.05.2016. The applicant bank served a demand notice dated 20.10.2018 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 notice by this Tribunal, sole defendant failed to put appearance at all, despite publication. Accordingly, the sole defendant was proceeded against exparte on 01.04.2023.

5. The applicant bank has filed documents as Paper No.1 to Paper No.56, 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. sl

TANO. 131,3 of 2023 J

6. After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The 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 documents filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents. In the light of the above discussions, the present T.A. deserues to be allowed.

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the sole defendant to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.10,93,979l- along with cost, expenses and interest @11.15olo from the date of filing 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 personal movable and immovable assets of the sole defendant.

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

4) The registry of tltis Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order aryd send the same to both the parties. +

TA NO. 1313 of2023

5) Pafties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 12.L0.2026. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. Fib be consigned to records. ( s\ Date : 12.08.2026 (susHrL KUMAc i{Asiocr) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court. Date : 12.08.2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR oGr) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi sA ilAst