Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
CANARA BANK vs M/S VIJETA TRADING on 19 June 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 121/2024
Date of Institution: 23.05.2019
Date of Decision: 19.06.2026
Canara Bank having branch office at Shalamar Road, Jammu.
……..Applicant
Vs.
1. M/s Vijeta Trading through its proprietor Mohit Gupta s/o Late Sh. Jagdish Raj Gupta, r/o 1881/11, Nanak Nagar, Jammu.
2. Sh. Abhishek Mahajan s/o Late Sh. Jagdish Raj Gupta, r/o 1881/11, Nanak Nagar, Jammu.
……….Defendants
Advocates
Mr. Rishav Gupta proxy counsel for Sh. Gaurav Thakur, Counsel for the applicant bank.
Defendants-ex parte vide order dated 26.08.2025.
TA for the Recovery of ₹46,07,034/- with interest @11.85% with monthly rests from 23.05.2019.
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 23.05.2019, Canara Bank filed the suit for the recovery of ₹46,07,034/- with interest against M/s Vijeta Trading and another (defendants) in the Court of District Court, Jammu. However, vide order dated 24.05.2023, this suit was transferred by the Court of Additional District Judge, (Commercial Court), Jammu, to DRT-I, Chandigarh.
2. Bank’s case is that on 06.04.2016, it had granted a loan of ₹35.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its then proprietor Smt. Vijeta Gupta in the form of C.C Limit for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.2 had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.4 of the application). Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor for the aforementioned limit vide dated 26.05.2016.
2A. In September of 2017, at the request of the defendants, Mr. Mohit Gupta became the proprietor of Defendant no.1 and the same was agreed upon by the Bank. On 20.09.2017, Bank renewed the existing limit at ₹35.00Lacs in the form of C.C. Limit to defendant No.1 through its new proprietor Sh. Mohit Gupta for Business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.2 had mortgaged his land (fully detailed in para No.4 of the application). Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for the renewed C.C. Limit of ₹35.00 Lacs vide Deed of Guarantee dated 20.09.2017. 2B. Again on 02.01.2018, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing C.C. Limit from ₹35.00Lacs to ₹42.00Lacs. To secure the enhanced limit, defendant No.2 mortgaged his property (fully detailed in para No.12 of the application). Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for the enhanced limit vide Deed of Guarantee dated 02.07.2018. On 30.04.2019, a sum of ₹46,07,034/- was due from the defendants. Despite repeated requests, defendants did not make the repayment. Hence, the suit.
3. The Civil Court sent summonses to the defendants by registered post, which were duly served. After transfer of this suit, summonses were sent to the defendants which were duly served. However, they did not put in appearance. Vide order dated 26.08.2025, they were proceeded ex parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. Naresh Kumar, Authorized Officer, 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 ₹42.00 Lacs and on 30.04.2019, a sum of ₹46,07,034/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹46,07,034/- (Rupees Forty Six Lacs Seven Thousand Thirty Four Only) with interest @11.85% per annum with monthly rests from 23.05.2019, till the date of payment is hereby allowed with costs. The liability of both the defendants would be joint and several. Bank can recover its dues by the sale of mortgaged property(ies) fully detailed in para Nos.3 and 12 of the application as well as from the personal movable and immovable property(ies) of the defendants.
7. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
8. Recovery Certificate be issued accordingly.
9. Parties are directed to appear before Recovery Officer on 20.07.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the mortgaged property(ies) 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: 19.06.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA