Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri.D. Venkatesh Proprietor M/S Ashwini Opticals Vision Care

DRT22 Aug 2025OA/1412/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an exparte hearing, the Tribunal allowed the bank's application for a recovery certificate. It validated the uncontroverted loan documents, confirmed the default and liability, and awarded recovery of the principal amount plus interest at 14.25% p.a., permitting execution against scheduled and other assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate awarded for Rs. 29,37,491/- with 14.25% p.a. interest from filing date, executable against the defendants.

Canara Bank versus Sri.D. Venkatesh Proprietor M/S Ashwini… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 22^nd Day of August, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.1412/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank South End Road Branch, No.96, South End Road, South End Circle, Bengaluru-560004, By its Manager, Smt. Thota Manjusha … APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. D. Venkatesh S/o. Sri. Doreswami Aged about 50 years, Proprietor, M/s. Ashwini Opticals Vision Care, 9, Model House Street, Kariyappa Road, Opp to Stencil, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560004

¶9

Smt. G. Rajalakshmi W/o. Sri. D. Venkatesh Major in age, No.659, Ganapathi Street, Ganapahtipura, Konanakunte Cross, Bengaluru – 560062 ...DEFENDANTS

¶10

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶11

Applicant : Sri. Mohanadasa N Defendants : Exparte

OA. No. 1412/2022

: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.29,37,491/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety One 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 Cash Credit limit of Rs.2,00,000/- on 13.12.2010, which was enhanced from time to time totaling to Rs.10,00,000/- and term loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on 03.05.2016.

¶17

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

¶18

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, 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 accounts as NPA.

¶19

OA. No. 1412/2022

¶20

¶21

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this

¶22

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

¶23

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 07.08.2024.

¶24

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 A28 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered

¶26

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

¶27

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶28

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants? ii) What order are to be passed?

¶29

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶30

OA. No. 1412/2022

¶31

¶32

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶33

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 admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of credit facilities as stated in the OA, creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim

¶34

of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶35

Since the OA claim is arrived at by calculating agreed rate

¶36

of interest, penal interest/default interest, which this Tribunal considers as on the higher side, pendentalite and future interest

¶37

is awarded at fixed rate.

¶38

Hence in view of the above finding which cover both the

¶39

issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA

is to be allowed.

OA. No. 1412/2022

In the result, OA.No.1412/2022 stands allowed,

¶44

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶45

sum of Rs.29,37,491/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakh Thirty Seven

¶46

Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety One only) with further interest of 14.25% 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 the same to be recovered by proceeding against schedule property. The schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶47

ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient to pay of the liability, the balance can be recovered by proceedings against the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan account.

¶48

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶52

OA. No. 1412/2022

¶53

¶54

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties

¶55

concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read

¶56

with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶57

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 22^nd Day of August 2025].

¶58

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶59

ANNEXURES

¶60

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK: AW-1: Sri. Palanivelrajan, Chief Manager of the applicant bank.

¶61

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶62

Annexure	Particulars	Date
A1	Affidavit Evidence	13.12.2010
A2	List of documents	13.12.2010
A3	Letter Of Proprietorship	13.12.2010
A4	Request for overdraft facilities	13.12.2010
A5	Cash credit agreement	13.12.2010
A6	On demandpromissorynote	13.12.2010
A7	Guarantee coveringletter	12.09.2013
A8	Guarantee agreement	12.09.2013
A9	Request for overdraft facilities	12.09.2013
A10	Supplemental agreement	12.09.2013
A11	On demandpromissorynote	12.09.2013
A12	Link letter	13.03.2014
A13	Letter of Renewal	13.03.2014
A14	Supplemental agreement	13.03.2014

¶63

OA. No. 1412/2022

¶64

A15	On demandpromissorynote	13.03.2014
A16	Link letter	29.10.2015
A17	Letter of renewal	29.10.2015
A18	Supplemental agreement	29.10.2015
A19	On demandpromissorynote	28.12.2016
A20	Letter of renewal	21.05.2019
A21	Letter of revival	03.05.2016
A22	Certified account extract for OCC limit	21.05.2019
A23	Letter ofproprietorship	03.05.2016
A24	Deed of hypothecation reg. machinery	03.05.2016
A25	Letter of Undertaking	03.05.2016
A26	Letter of Revival	08.04.2019
A27	Certified account extract for OCC limit	21.04.2022
A28	Order by this Hon’ble Tribunal in DiaryNo.1528/2019	08.12.2021

¶65

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Sri.D. Venkatesh Proprietor M/S Ashwini Opticals Vision Care

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri.D. Venkatesh Proprietor M/S Ashwini Opticals Vision Care

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

Leelamma C S versus Federal Bank

Ajitha Reji versus Federal Bank

State Bank of India versus M/S Tirupati Associates, a Proprietary Concern Acting through Its Proprietor Shri Namdeo S/O Vishwanath Kadu

Smt Leelavathi versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Bank of India versus Amruth Hardware and Paints

Canara Bank versus Mahadevu