Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Srinidhi Steel and Cement

DRT19 Sept 2025OA/1408/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act. The court found the defendant's liability undisputed and issued a Recovery Certificate for the dues plus 10% reduced simple interest, permitting execution against personal assets and hypothecated movables.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 29,31,064.27 plus 10% simple interest from filing date, executable personally and against assets/hypothecated movables.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Srinidhi Steel and Cement — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA

¶2

AT BENGALURU

¶3

Dated this 19^th Day of September, 2025

¶4

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶5

Presiding Officer

¶6

OA.No.1408/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Bank of Maharashta, Branch office at: Asset recovery Branch- Bengaluru, Address-15, Police Station Road, Basavangudi, Bengaluru South- 560004, Represented by the Branch Head, Mr. Nishit Chandra

¶9

…APPLICANT

¶10

AND:

¶11

Srinidhi Steel & Cement, A Proprietorship concern represented by Proprietor:Venkatesh V, S/o Venkata Setty, Aged 44 years, No. 68/10, Kembhatahalli, Gottigere post, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore- 560083.

¶12

...DEFENDANT

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : Divya Purandar Defendant : Exparte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendant for Rs. 29,31,064.27 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakh Thirty One Thousand Sixty Four and Paise

¶17

OA 1408/2022

¶18

¶19

Twenty Seven Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization. The defendant is a proprietorship concern.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant availed cash credit facility of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Only) for working capital requirements.

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendant executed the necessary loan documents along with demand promissory note and hypothecation agreement.

¶22

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

¶23

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal

¶24

by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

¶25

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 13.11.2024.

¶26

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-11 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the

¶28

OA 1408/2022

¶29

¶30

contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶31

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶32

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

¶33

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove

¶36

availment of credit facilities as stated in the OA, creation of hypothecation 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.

¶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 the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶39

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶40

availed for Business purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by

¶41

OA 1408/2022

¶42

¶43

calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view of the OA can

¶44

be allowed with a reduced interest of 10.00% (simple).

¶45

In the result, OA.No.1408/2022, stands allowed,

¶46

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.

¶47

29,31,064.27 (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakh Thirty One Thousand Sixty Four and Paise Twenty Seven Only) with further interest @10.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendant 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 proceedings against the proprietor personally and also proceeding against his assets including hypothecated movables. Schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

iv) Interim application pending, if any, are disposed of with this Final Order.

¶52

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

¶53

OA 1408/2022

¶54

¶55

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

¶56

Rules, 1993.

¶57

[Dictated to the Stenographer (AJ), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the

¶58

Open Court, this the 19^th Day of September, 2025].

¶59

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶60

ANNEXURES

¶61

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶62

AW-1: Nishit Chandra, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶63

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶64

Exhibit Nos.	Particulars of Documents
A1	Copy of sanction communication dated 27.09.2019
A2	Copy of application/ letter for making credit facilities dated 27.09.2019 signed by defendant
A3	Copy of demand promissory note dated 27.09.2019 executed by defendant
A4	Copy of hypothecation agreement dated 27.09.2019
A5	Copy of letter of authority signed by defendant
A6	Copy of letter of proprietorship signed by the defendant
A7	Copy of receipt for amount of loan signed by defendant
A8	Copy of recall notice dated 22.06.2020
A9	Copy of recall notice dated 16.09.2020
A10	Copy of legal notice dated 26.04.2021
A11	Certified extract of the statement of accounts bearing No. 60342945640

¶65

Witness Examined for the Defendant:

¶66

-Nil -

¶67

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant:

¶68

-Nil -

¶69

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶70

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

Bank of Maharashtra v. Srinidhi Steel and Cement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Srinidhi Steel and Cement

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

Abbas Ca versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sachin Kumar Kaushal

Canara Bank versus M/S Avtar Bag Factory

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Hardik

Ms Habib Agro Industries Rep by Its Partners and Legal Heir of Late Sri Habib Khan and Others versus the Authorised Officer Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

Ms Habib Agro Industries Rep by Its Industries Rep by Its Partner and Legal Heirs of Late Sri Habib Khan and Others versus the Authorised Officer Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.