Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Ms Pranamya Biofuel

DRT25 Nov 2025OA/1360/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by Bank of Baroda seeking a recovery certificate against proprietors and other defendants for default on loan accounts. The tribunal issued a certificate for Rs. 51.62 lakh with interest capped at 10% simple p.a., making defendants jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 51,62,169.17 with 10% simple interest annually from filing date, recoverable jointly and severally from defendants and their assets.

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Pranamya Biofuel — Banking and Recovery | 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.1360/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Bank of Baroda Kukkikatte Branch Near Diana Theatre Kukkikatte, Udupi, Karnataka – 576101 Through its Branch Manager Mr. Udeeth Kumar

¶7

… APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

M/s. Pranamya Biofuel A proprietary concern of Smt. Srinidhi A Bhat Having address at: No.6/3D (H), Sy.No.605/2B3, Suvarna Compoud, Kaapithota, Perdoor, Udupi – 576124

¶10

Smt. Srinidhi Abhinandan Bhat W/o. Abhinandan Bhat No.6/3D (H), Sy.No.605/2B3, Suvarna Compound, KaapiThota, Perdoor, Udupi-576124

¶11

Also at: Bhujanga Rao Compound, Chitpady, 76 Badagabettu Village, Udupi Taluk & Dist. ...DEFENDANTS Counsel on record/appeared for: Applicant : M/s. V S Associates Defendants : Exparte

OA. No.1360/2022

:FINAL ORDER:

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.51,62,169.17/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakh Sixty Two Thousand One Hundred Sixty Nine and Seventeen Paisa only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶16

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed the following credit facilities:

¶17

i. OCC facility of Rs.30,00,000/-on 02.01.2020

¶18

ii. Term loan of Rs.18,00,000/- on 12.09.2018

¶19

iii. Term loan of Rs.55,804/-

¶20

iv. CEGL of Rs.3,00,000/- on 03.06.2020

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facilities, the defendants executed necessary loan documents.

¶22

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

¶23

OA. No.1360/2022

¶24

¶25

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.

¶26

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 02.11.2023.

¶27

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed their Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A3 to A18 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: i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants?

¶30

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

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

¶33

OA. No.1360/2022

¶34

undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of credit facilities as stated in the OA, as to the execution of loan documents as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶35

Hence in view of the above finding which cover both the issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶36

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities were availed for business purpose and also that 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 10.00% (simple).

¶37

In the result, OA.No.1360/2022 stands allowed,

¶38

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.51,62,169.17/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakh Sixty Two Thousand One Hundred Sixty Nine and Seventeen Paisa only) with further interest of 10.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from defendants, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed

¶39

OA. No.1360/2022

¶40

¶41

the same to be recovered by proceeding against the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their other assets of the defendants, including the schedule property is liable for all such amounts due under the loan account. The schedule property to the OA be the schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶45

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶46

v) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of with this Final Order.

¶47

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶48

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

¶49

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA. No.1360/2022

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶54

AW-1: Udeeth Kumar, Senior Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

¶55

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶56

Annexure	Particulars
A1	Applicant evidence
A2	List of documents
A3	Sanction letter dated 27.07.2018
A4	Letter of confirmation of balance in loan account dated 27.07.2018
A5	Letter of access dated 27.07.2018
A6	Sanction letter dated 12.09.2018
A7	Letter dated 12.09.2018
A8	Demand promissory note dated 02.01.2020
A9	Letter of acknowledgment of debts dated 02.01.2020
A10	Sanction letter dated 03.06.2020
A11	Demand promissory note dated 03.06.2020
A12	Extension of Mortgage by deposit of title deeds dated 03.06.2020
A13	Confirmation of creation of second/subsequent equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds dated 10.06.2020
A14	Demand notice on 16.04.2021, under section 13(2) SARFAESI Act

¶57

OA. No.1360/2022

¶58

A15	True extract of statement of accounts pertaining to the defendants’ loan account No. 74060600000016
	True extract of statement of account pertaining to
A16	the defendants’ loan account No. 74060600000391;
A17	True extract of statement of accounts pertaining to the defendants’ loan account No.74060600000970
A18	True extract of statement of accounts pertaining to the defendants’ loan account No.74060600000399

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Ms Pranamya Biofuel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Ms Pranamya Biofuel

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