Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
CANARA BANK vs M/S CLEAN PLAST on 17 June 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 133/2024
Date of Institution: 09.08.2018
Date of Decision: 17.06.2026
Canara Bank having its branches all over India and a Branch at Karan Bhawan, Shalamar Road, Jammu.
……..Applicant
Vs.
M/s Clean Plast, Lane No.4, SIDCO Complex, Bari Brahmana, Jammu through Prop. Sh. Yogesh Kohli s/o Sh. Surinder Kohli, r/o 200/7 Talab Tillo, Jammu.
……….Defendant
Advocates
Mr. Chirag Bhagat proxy counsel for Ms. Anuradha Gupta, Counsel for the applicant bank.
Defendant- ex parte vide order dated 26.08.2021 (Jammu).
TA for the Recovery of ₹32,63,718.84p with interest @14.40% per annum with monthly rests from 09.08.2018.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. On 09.08.2018, Canara Bank, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹32,63,718.84p with interest against M/s Clean Plast (defendant) in the Ld. Principal District Judge Jammu. However, vide order dated 09.05.2023, this suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.
2. Bank’s case is that on 27.02.2012, it had granted a loan of ₹22.00 Lacs to the defendant through its proprietor Yogesh Kohli in the form of O.C.C Limit for business purpose. The limit was renewed from time to time and lastly on 17.03.2016. To secure the loan, Yogesh Kohli had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.6 of the application). The loan was chargeable to interest @14.40% per annum with monthly rests. On 31.07.2018, a sum of ₹32,63,718.84p was due from the defendant. Despite repeated requests, defendant did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.
2
3. The Civil Court sent summonses to the defendant by registered post, which was duly served. Defendant did not put in appearance before Civil Court which proceeded ex parte on 26.08.2021.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Sh. Naresh Kumar, Branch Manager, along with the original loan and security documents.
5. I have perused the evidence on the record. I am of the considered view that the Bank has proved its case that it had advanced the loan of ₹22.00 Lacs and on 31.07.2018, a sum of ₹32,63,718.84p was due.
6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹32,63,718.84p (Rupees Thirty Two Lacs Sixty Three Thousand Seven Hundred Eighteen and Paise Eighty Four Only) with interest @14.40% per annum with monthly rests from 09.08.2018, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged land fully detailed in para No.6 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendant.
7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9. Party is directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 20.07.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged land and hypothecated assets as per the provisions of Section 19(20-AB) of the Act.
10. A Copy of this order along with Recovery Certificate be sent to the Recovery Officer as well as the parties.
Pronounced in the open court.
(A S Narang) Dated: 17.06.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA