Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. Ms Muddu Creations

DRT27 Oct 2025OA/1056/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by City Union Bank against Muddu Communication and proprietors for a recovery certificate of Rs. 50.90 lakh. The claim was unrebutted as defendants appeared ex parte. Relief granted includes recovery with reduced interest at 12%.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate for Rs.50,90,040 with 12% simple interest to be drawn and transferred to Recovery Officer for execution.

City Union Bank Limited versus Ms Muddu Creations — Consumer Protection | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of October, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1056/2022

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

City Union Bank Kormangala Branch, No.92, Z Square, Ground Floor, Jyothi Nivas Col. Industrial Layout, 5^th Block, Kormangala Bengaluru- 560034

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Muddu Communication Rep by its Proprietor Sri. P Muniramu No.119, Railway Gate Road, Pantharapalya, Mysore Road, Bangalore- 560039

¶9

Sri. P Muniramu S/o. Puttapa

¶10

Smt. Mahalaxmi W/o. P Muniramu

¶11

Sri. P Seetharamaiah S/o. Puttappa

¶12

All are R/at: No.4, Basavalingappa Colony Nayandanahally, Bangalore- 560039

...DEFENDANTS

OA 1056-2022

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶17

Applicant : Malini Vinay Defendants : Exparte

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act

¶20

1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate Rs.50,90,040/- (Rupees fifty lakh ninety thousand and forty only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶21

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant No.1 is a Proprietary concern with defendant No.2 as its Proprietor along with other defendants had availed the following credit facilities from the applicant bank:-

¶22

I. OD Loan of a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Only) from which defendants no. 1 & 2 are liable and which was later enhanced from time to time,

¶23

II. OSL loan limit of Rs.11,50,000/- (Rupees eleven lakh fifty Thousand Only), in which Defendant No.4 stood as guarantor,

¶24

III. OSL Credit Loan limit of Rs.2,70,000/- (Rupees two lakh seventy thousand Only) in which Defendant No.4 stood as

OA 1056-2022

guarantor,

IV. CIFTL loan limit of Rs.1,77,000/- (Rupees one lakh seventy seven thousand only).

¶29

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with agreement of hypothecation, registered memorandum, supplemental agreement and letter of revival in favor of the applicant bank.

¶30

It is further contended that, the defendants despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, failed in complying the same, resulting in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶31

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

¶32

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 23.01.2025.

¶33

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed

¶34

OA 1056-2022

¶35

¶36

Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-33 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶37

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and the proof affidavit.

¶38

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶39

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶40

OA claim as against the defendant?

¶41

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶42

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶43

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶44

remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found

¶45

admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of credit facilities as stated in the OA, creation of hypothecation and mortgage as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults

¶46

committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and

¶47

OA 1056-2022

¶48

¶49

the claim as the amount due is also proved by the above

¶50

documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶51

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this

¶52

Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence

¶53

this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶54

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶55

are availed by defendants for Business purpose and also that OA

¶56

claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this

¶57

Tribunal, in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest @12% p.a.(Simple).

¶58

In the result, OA.No.1056/2022, stands allowed,

¶59

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶60

sum of Rs.50,90,040 (Rupees fifty lakh ninety thousand and

¶61

paisa forty only) with further interest @12% p.a. (Simple),

¶62

from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants

¶63

jointly severally and personally after giving credit to all the

¶64

amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA

¶65

OA 1056-2022

¶66

¶67

and allowed the same to be recovered by proceedings against

¶68

the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶69

(ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendants

¶70

personally and their other assets are liable to be proceeded

¶71

against for the balance amount due in respective accounts.

¶72

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶73

which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of

¶74

receipt of the order.

¶75

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this

¶76

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶77

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of

¶78

in terms of this final order.

¶79

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶80

in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16

¶81

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶82

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27^th day of October, 2025].

¶83

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA 1056-2022

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶88

AW-1: Ravishankar T S, Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶89

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶90

The documents are appended in this order.

¶91

Witness Examined for the Defendant: -Nil - List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶92

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

City Union Bank Limited v. Ms Muddu Creations

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. Ms Muddu Creations

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

Punjab National Bank versus Smt Seema Rani

Canara Bank versus Sh. Sukhwant Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Ninder Singh

Anjali versus Uco Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S De Rigueur Apparels Private Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S Aadinath Plastics