Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri. Prakash Acharya

DRT11 Oct 2023OA/772/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an Original Application filed by Canara Bank against Sri Prakash Acharya for recovery of dues totaling over Rs.22 lakhs arising from non-repayment of sanctioned overdraft and loan facilities under Section 19 RDB Act. The defendant appeared ex parte.

What did the court decide?

OA allowed with interest and costs; liberty to sell schedule property and proceed against other properties; office directed to issue recovery certificate.

Canara Bank versus Sri. Prakash Acharya — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I, KARNATAKA

¶2

AT BENGALURU

¶3

Dated this the 11th day of October,2023

¶4

Present: Sri Imtiaz Ali

Presiding Officer

OANo.772l2022

BETWEEN:

Canara Bank

Hampankatta Branch Light House Hill Road Hampankatta Mangalore 575 001 Represented by its Senior Manager Sri Devesh Pratap Singh

¶10

... APPLICANT

¶11

AND:

¶12

Sri Prakash Acharya S/o. Sri Gopalakrishna Aged about 44 years

¶13

Prop: M/s. Sri Umamaheshwari Shilpakala

¶14

Having its reoistered Office at - No.2-t74, Thuppekallu House

¶15

Arkula, Farangipet Mangaluru 575 143

¶16

Also at -

¶17

No.5-245 (30), K.K. Punja Building Arkula, Farangipet, Padu Bantwal Taluk Mangaluru 575 L43

¶18

... DEFENDANT

¶19

Counsels on record /aooeared for:

¶20

Applicant : Sri M. Mohan Rao

¶21

Defendant i Ex parte

¶22

FINAL ORDER

¶23

The present OA has been filed by the Applicant Bank

¶24

under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy

¶25

\L . Y

¶26

OA.No.77212022

¶27

Act, 1993, seeking recovery of money of Rs,22,37,857.O1 (Rupees twenty-two lakhs thirty-seven thousand eight hundred fifty-seven and paise one only) together with costs, interest, etc.,

¶28

The case of the Applicant Bank is that the Defendant had approached the Applicant Bank for grant of Overdraft facility. The Applicant Bank has considered the request of the Defendant and sanctioned a Overdraft facility of Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of the Defendant on 28.12.2018. Again the Defendant had approached the Applicant Bank for grant of Term Loan facility for the purpose of purchase of furniture and metal items. The Applicant Bank has considered the request of the Defendant and sanctioned a Term Loan facility of Rs.4,50,000/- in favour of the Defendant on 15.11.2018, in terms of loan agreements, Further in view of the RBI Circular No.85/13.03.00/2015- 16 dated 26.02.2020 the Defendant for repaying the interest component on the existing loan availed FITL loan facility of Rs.77,025/- from the Applicant Bank. This FITL loan facility was newly introduced by RBI in order to tackle the^growing NPA burden and also for extending further facility under Covid-19 pandemic. In order to secure the loans, the Defendant has

¶29

¶30

OA.No.712/2022

¶31

executed documents, viz.t Composite hypothecation agreements, Guarantee agreements etc.,

¶32

Further, the Defendant has agreed to repay the above loans with variable rate of interests. as applicable from time to time as^per the directions of the Head Office/Central Office of the Applicant Bank and^penal interest in case of default and keep the accounts regular by^{paying installments as and} when due to the satisfaction of the Applicant Bank, as detailed in the OA by the Applicant Bank.

¶33

The Defendant after utilising the said loan has failed and neglected to make the^repayment of the^{loan dues as} agreed and Defendant has not serviced the^{interestthereon} as^per the terms and condition^agreedby the^{Defendant. The} Defendant is very irregular in operating^{the Overdraftfacility.} The Defendant has failed and neglected to operate the^loan account regularly and briskly.^Therefore, the^{ApplicantBank} has classified the loan account as^{Non-Performing Asset.} Thereafter, the Applicant Bank has sent^{recall notice to the} Defendant on 15.04.2021 calling upon the^{Defendant to} repay the entire loan amount in one^{lump sum. In spite of} receipt of recall notice, the Defendant^{has failed and}

¶34

¶35

4 OA.No.772l2O22

¶36

neglected to repay the outstanding dues. Hence the recovery process is initiated to recover the dues.

¶37

In the light of these factors, it is contended by the Applicant Bank that Defendant is liable to pay a total sum of Rs.22,37,857,OL (Rupees twenty-two lakhs thirtyseven thousand eight hundred fifty-seven and paise one only).

¶38

After filing this OA, Summons was sent and served to the Defendant through RPAD. When the Defendant is ca ed out, the Defendant remained absent and placed ex pade.

¶39

To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, its Senior Manager, Sri Devesh Pratap Singh, has Rled his affidavit by way of evidence the same was considered as evidence of AW.1 and marked at Ex.A1 and list of documents came to be marked at Ex.A2 and 13 documents came to be marked at Ex.A3 to A15.

¶40

No evidence on behalf of the Defendant.

¶41

Arguments of Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/ Applicant Bank heard and perused the records of the case.

¶42

¶43

5 OA-No.77212022

¶44

Following^points arise for my consideration:

¶45

1. Whether Plaintiff/Applicant Bank^proves its case as contended in the^{plaint/application?}

¶46

What Order?

¶47

For the following reasons, I answer the abovereferred^points in the following manner:

¶48

REASONS

¶49

The Senior Manager of the^{Applicant Bank came to be} examined as AW.1. His affidavit by way of^evidence reiterated the facts^pleaded in the^plaint and^his affidavit^is also corroborated by the above-referred^Ex.A3 to^A15which clearly establish the case of the ApPlicant^Bank to^{allow the} present OA. Added to this, the Defendant has remained absent, hence it is to be construed^{that Defendanthas} admitted the entire case^{pleadedby the Applicant Bank in the}

¶50

present oA.

¶51

Therefore, for these^{reasons,presentOA is to be} allowed with costs as sought^{by the ApplicantBank.}

OA.No.772/2022

ORDER

Present OA stands allowed as prayed for with interest

¶57

and costs.

¶58

In the event of failure of the Defendant to pay the said OA amount, the Applicant Bank is at liberty to selt the Schedule property in accordance with law as sought by the Applicant Bank in the OA.

¶59

In spite of sale of the schedule property, if the OA amount is not fully realised, then the Applicant Bank is at liberty to proceed against the person and other properties of the Defendant in accordance with law.

¶60

Applicant Bank shall file latest Memo of Calculation of OA amount together with interest, costs etc,, to be paid by Defendant duly taking into account the amount/s, if any, paid by the Defendant and/or amount realised by sale of assets, etc., during the intervening period after filing the OA, to enable the omce to prepare Recovery Certificate for the amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Applicant Bank.

¶61

¶62

Offlce is directed to issue Recovery Certificate as sought by the Applicant Bank in the OA and do the needful as required under the law forthwith.

¶63

OA.No.77212022

¶64

The Office is directed to issue, as far as possible, free

¶65

copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶66

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after its transcription and necessary corrections, signed and

¶67

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 1lth day of October, 2023)

¶68

\ v (Imtidz Ati) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Bengaluru

¶69

ANNEXURES

¶70

Witness Examined for the Aoolicant Bank: AW-1 : Sri Devesh Pratap Singh

¶71

The Senior Manager of Applicant Bank List of Documents Exhibited for the Aoolicant Bank: Ex.A-l : Affidavit of AW-1 Ex.A-2 ; List of Documents

¶72

Ex.A-3 to A-15 : 13 documents

¶73

Witness Examined for the Defendant:

¶74

Nit-

¶75

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant:

¶76

Nit-

¶77

o' (Imtlaz Ali)\ '..* Presiding Officer DRT-f, Bengaluru

¶78

Canara Bank v. Sri. Prakash Acharya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri. Prakash Acharya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uco Bank versus Messers B K J Enterprise

Punjab National Bank versus M/S M S Hardware

Icici Bank Limited versus Ajay Devanand Gadpayle

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Bhawani International

State Bank of India versus Sh. Karam Singh

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Joshi International