CANARA BANK vs M/S DELUX ENTERPRISES on 6 October 2026

1. The appellant filed O.A. bearing No. 41/2023 titled as **Canara Bank v. M/s Delux Enterprises & others** which is stated to be pending before DRT-I, Chandigarh. The DRT-I, Chandigarh on 03.02.2023 took up the file on I.A. bearing No. 103/2023 for attachment before judgment which was filed by the appellant and the DRT-I, Chandigarh vide order dated 03.02.2023 has restrained the defendants including the appellant from alienating the properties as mentioned / detailed in I.A. bearing No. 103/2023. The respondent no.4 being the defendant no.4 filed the I.A. bearing No. 392/2023 for recalling the order dated 03.02.2023.

2. The respondent no.4 being defendant no.4 alleged that he was the guarantor to the limited liability to the tune of Rs.4.48 crores and the stress value of the mortgage property available with the appellant was to the tune of Rs.4.40 crores. It was also stated that the appellant has raised the claim of Rs.5.30 crores against the defendants including the respondent no.4. It was also stated that respondent no.4 being the defendant no.4 has already entered into an agreement to sell qua the properties mentioned para no.3 of the order dated 16.08.2023 and the respondent no.4 along with defendant no.5 was likely to get Rs.65 lacs. Accordingly, DRT-I, Chandigarh after hearing and considering the contention of the parties recalled the order dated 03.02.2023 subject to the furnishing of security in the sum of Rs.70 lacs by the respondent no.4 i.e. defendants no.4 and 5.

3. The appellant being the OA applicant filed the present appeal. Ms. Seema Gupta, Counsel for the appellant argued that the mortgage properties would not be sufficient to recover the anticipated decretal amount after the trial of O.A. bearing No. 41/2023 and argued that the properties as mentioned in para no.3 of the order dated 06.08.2023 be ordered to be attached in their entirety. However, it is also came on record these properties have been sold and subsequent purchasers have not been impleaded as a necessary party.

4. It is reflecting from the record that the liability of the respondent no.4 being the defendant no.4 was restricted to the tune of Rs. 4.48 crores and the appellant has raised the claim in the OA to the tune of Rs.5.30 crores against the defendants. The respondent no.4 entered into an agreement to sell with the properties as mentioned in para no.3 of the order dated 16.08.2023 and in fact these properties were subsequently sold. The respondent no.4 already submitted the security of Rs.70 lacs as ordered by the impugned order dated 16.08.2026.

5. The arguments as advanced by Ms. Seema Gupta, Counsel for the appellant that the anticipated decretal value arising out of O.A. bearing No. 41/2023 may be much more and the appellant may not be able to recover the entire anticipated decretal amount from the secured assets. However, this argument of Ms. Seema Gupta, Counsel for the appellant at this stage are appearing to be misplaced and misconceived and cannot be accepted. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 16.08.2023 which requires any interference by this Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed along with pending application, if any.

----- **(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain)** **Chairperson**

N