Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Puttalingegowda

DRT25 Nov 2025OA/122/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed OA for recovery certificate regarding Crop Hitech Floriculture loan default. Tribunal found affidavit evidence sufficient after respondents remained ex parte. Allowed reduced interest rate of 6.00% instead of higher contract rate due to agricultural purpose of loan.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate for Rs. 59,41,218.80 plus interest at 6% p.a. (simple) from OA date till realization allowed; execution against schedule property permitted.

Union Bank of India versus Puttalingegowda — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 25^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.122/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Channapatna Branch, No. 2191/4-10, B M Road. Kuvempunagar, Channapatna, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagar District- 562160.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Mr. Puttalingegowda, S/o Doddegowda, Aged about 72 years, Virupakshipura Village, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District- 562160.

¶10

Mr. Shivakumar P, S/o Puttalingegowda, Aged about 38 years, Virupakshipura Village, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District- 562160.

¶11

...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Shivashankara A Defendants : Siddappa (WS Closed)

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under

¶16

OA 122/2023

¶17

¶18

section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 59,41,218.80 (Rupees Fifty Nine Lakh Forty One Thousand Two Hundred Eighteen and Paise Eighty Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants availed Crop Hitech Floriculture loan of Rs. 34,40,000/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakh Forty Thousand Only).

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with demand promissory note and deed of simple mortgage.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

Despite, entering appearance by filing Vakalath the respondents failed to file written statement within the stipulated time, hence written statement of defendants stands closed.

¶24

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

¶25

OA 122/2023

¶26

¶27

Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-3 to A-19 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶28

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

¶29

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶30

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants?

¶31

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶32

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶33

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put

¶34

forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove

¶35

availment of credit facilities as stated in the OA, creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above

¶36

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

¶37

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal

¶38

find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of

¶39

OA 122/2023

¶40

¶41

the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶42

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶43

availed for Agriculture purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

¶44

In the result, OA.No.122/2023, stands allowed,

¶45

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 59,41,218.80 (Rupees Fifty Nine Lakh Forty One Thousand Two Hundred

¶46

Eighteen and Paise Eighty Only) with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally & personally, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶47

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the

¶48

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally & personally and their assets are liable for respective amounts due under the respective loan accounts.

¶49

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings which

¶50

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

OA 122/2023

order.

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

¶55

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶56

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

¶57

of this final order.

¶58

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms

¶59

of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure)

¶60

Rules, 1993.

¶61

[Dictated to the Stenographer (AJ), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 25^th Day of November, 2025].

¶62

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶63

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶64

ANNEXURES

¶65

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶66

AW-1: Sharon C Nelson, Senior Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶67

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶68

Exhibit Nos.	Particulars of Documents
A3	Gazette notification (Amalgamation for Andhra Bank & Corporation Bank into Union Bank of India) dated 04.03.2020
A4	Loan application dated 07.06.2016 submitted by defendants
A5	Sanction letter dated 07.06.2016 issued by applicant/ plaintiff bank
A6	Agreement for term loans dated 07.06.2016 executed by defendants

¶69

OA 122/2023

¶70

¶71

A7	Demand promissory note dated 07.06.2016 executed by defendants
A8	Take delivery letter to DPN dated 07.06.2016 executed by defendants
A9	Letter of undertaking dated 07.06.2016 executed by defendants in favour of applicant bank
A10	Common deed of hypothecation of movables/ assets/ debts dated 07.06216 submitted by the defendants
A11	Common deed of hypothecation of crops/ stocks dated 07.06.2016 executed by the defendants
A12	Deed of simple mortgage dated 06.06.2016 executed by 1^stdefendant
A13	Memorandum of agreement dated 6.06.2016 executed by 1^stdefendant
A14	Demand promissory note dated 06.07.2018 executed by 1^stdefendant
A15	Take delivery letter to DPN dated 06.07.2018 executed by 1^stdefendant
A16	Demand promissory note dated 30.06.2020 executed by 1^stdefendant
A17	Take delivery letter to DPN dated 30.06.2020 executed by 1^stdefendant
A18	Legal notice issued dated 20.06.2022 by applicant/ plaintiff bank along with receipts
A19	Certified copy of the statement of account bearing No. 56093100160367

¶72

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶73

-Nil -

¶74

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶75

-Nil -

¶76

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶77

PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Puttalingegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Puttalingegowda

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

Basil Co. versus Kerala Gramin Bank

Uco Bank versus Sh. Bachchan Kumar Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Bhagwant Singh

Indu Kumari Pandey versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S K. K. Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Mr. Praveen