Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
CANARA BANK vs M/S TRAVEL EASY on 3 July 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: A S NARANG, PRESIDING OFFICER
TA No: 218/2023
Date of Institution: 04.03.2016
Date of Decision: 03.07.2026
Canara Bank having its branches all over India and a branch office at Budshah Chowk, Srinagar, Kashmir.
……..Applicant
Vs.
1. M/s Travel Easy Haji Shopping Complex Maharaja Bazar, Amira Kadal, Srinagar, through its proprietor Irfan Manzoor Darzi.
2. Irfan Manzoor Darzi s/o Late Manzoor Ahmed Darzi, r/o 141, Rose Lane Colony, Chanapora, Srinagar.
……….Defendants
Advocates
Sh. Iqbal Mohd., Counsel for the applicant bank.
Defendants- ex parte vide order dated 21.03.2025.
TA for the Recovery of ₹66,77,341/- with interest @12.65% per annum with monthly rests from 04.03.2016.
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 04.03.2016, Canara Bank, filed the suit for the recovery of ₹66,77,341/- with interest against M/s Travel Easy and another (defendants) in the Court of Principal District Judge, Srinagar. However, vide order dated 14.12.2022, Additional District Judge, (Bank Cases), Srinagar, transferred this suit to DRT-I, Chandigarh.
2. Bank’s case is that on 18.11.2014, it had granted C.C. Limit of ₹50.00 Lacs to defendant No.1 through its proprietor defendant No.2 for business purpose. To secure the loan, Defendant No.1 had hypothecated assets (fully detailed in para No.3 of the application). Again on 25.02.2015, at the request of the defendants, bank enhanced the existing limit from ₹50.00 Lacs to ₹60.00 Lacs. The loan was chargeable to interest @12.65% per annum with monthly rests. On 29.02.2016, a sum of ₹66,77,341/- 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 21.03.2025, they were proceeded ex parte.
4. In order to prove its case, the Bank has placed on record the affidavit of MD. Shahab Akhtar, 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 ₹60.00 Lacs and on 29.02.2016, a sum of ₹66,77,341/- was due.
6. Accordingly, the case of the bank for the recovery of ₹66,77,341/- (Rupees Sixty Six Lacs Seventy Seven Thousand Three Hundred Forty One Only) with interest @12.65% per annum with monthly rests from 04.03.2016, 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 hypothecated assets fully detailed in para No.3 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 04.08.2026, who is directed to distribute the sale proceeds of the
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: 03.07.2026 Presiding Officer DRT-1, Chandigarh MANOJ KALRA