Allowed

Canara Bank v. Balaji Sales Corporation

DRT25 Nov 2025OA/1443/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Canara Bank to issue a Recovery Certificate against the defendant for a loan default. The claim was allowed based on uncontroverted documentary evidence since the defendant appeared ex parte.

What did the court decide?

Order for Recovery Certificate issued against the defendant for Rs. 67,80,282.03 plus interest at 12% per annum (simple) from the date of filing the OA till realization.

Canara Bank versus Balaji Sales Corporation — 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.1443/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Konanakunte Branch, Bangalore – 560062 Rep. by its Branch Manager Smt. Kumari Archana … APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

M/s. Balaji Sales Corporation Proprietor – Sri. Shrwan Kumar Aged about 47 years, Having place of business at: No.39/C, Yelachenahalli, Near Cauvery Ford, K.P. Main Road, Bengaluru – 560062 ...DEFENDANT

¶9

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶10

Applicant : Smt. Sushreepriya Mohanty Defendant : Exparte

¶11

:FINAL ORDER:

¶12

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

¶13

under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendant for Rs.67,80,282.03 (Rupees Sixty Seven Lakh Eighty Thousand Two

¶14

Hundred Eighty Two and Three Paisa only) with further interest

¶15

OA. No.1443/2023

¶16

¶17

thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant availed cash credit loan of Rs.25,00,000/- on 22.03.2016, which was enhanced later and GECL loan of Rs.8,00,000/- on 10.06.2020.

¶19

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

¶20

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 account as NPA.

¶21

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.

¶22

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 19.04.2024.

¶23

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed their Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and

¶24

OA. No.1443/2023

¶25

¶26

also produced Exhibits A3 to A9 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

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.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶29

claim as against the defendant?

¶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 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 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.

¶33

Hence in view of the above finding which cover both the

¶34

OA. No.1443/2023

¶35

¶36

issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶37

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 12.00% (simple).

¶38

In the result, OA.No.1443/2023 stands allowed, i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.67,80,282.03 (Rupees Sixty Seven Lakh Eighty Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Two and Three Paisa only) with further interest of 12.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from defendant, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA.

¶39

ii) In the event of failure of the defendants to pay the aforesaid amount, the bank is at liberty to proceed against the defendant personally and his other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶40

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.

¶41

OA. No.1443/2023

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶45

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

¶46

with this Final Order.

¶47

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶48

in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶49

[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].

¶50

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶51

ANNEXURES

¶52

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶53

AW-1: G R Venkatesh, Senior Manager of the applicant bank.

¶54

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶55

Annexure	Particulars
A3	Loan Application Dated 06.02.2016
A4	Sanction letter dated 22.03.2016
A5	Letter Of Proprietorship Dated 28.03.2016
A6	Request for overdraft facility dated 28.03.2016
A7	Cash credit agreement dated 28.03.2016
A8	Pronote dated 28.03.2016
A9	Loan application dated 23.04.2017

¶56

OA. No.1443/2023

¶57

¶58

A10	Sanction memorandum dated 31.05.2017
A11	Letter of renewal dated 05.06.2017
A12	Supplemental agreement dated 05.06.2017
A13	Pronote dated 05.06.2017
A14	Sanction memorandum dated 06.10.2018
A15	Letter of renewal dated 06.10.2018
A16	Supplemental agreement dated 06.10.2018
A17	Pronote for Rs.5,00,000/- dated 06.10.2018
A18	Sanction memorandum dated 01.01.2020
A19	Letter of renewal dated 01.01.2020
A20	Supplemental agreement dated 23.01.2020
A21	Pronote of Rs.50,00,000/- dated 23.01.2020
A22	Loan application dated 08.02.2022
A23	Request for overdraft facilities dated 22.02.2022
A24	Letter of renewal dated 22.02.2022
A25	Supplemental agreement dated 22.02.2022
A26	Pronote of Rs.10,00,000/- dated 22.02.2022
A27	Letter of undertaking dated 22.02.2022
A28	Letter of revival dated 05.06.2017
A29	Letter of revival dated 06.10.2018
A30	Letter of revival dated 01.01.2020
A31	Letter of revival dated 22.02.2022
A32	Sanction letter dated 10.06.2020
A33	Agreement cum deed of hypothecation dated 10.06.2020
A34	Pronote of Rs.8,00,000/- dated 10.06.2020

¶59

OA. No.1443/2023

¶60

¶61

A35	Take delivery letter to DPN dated 10.06.2020
A36	Letter of revival dated 31.01.2023
A37	Sanction letter dated 17.05.2020
A38	Letter of Proprietorship dated 17.05.2022
A39	Common Hypothecation Agreement dated 17.05.2020
A40	Pronote of Rs.5,50,00/- dated 17.05.2022
A41	Letter of undertaking dated 17.05.2022
A42	Take delivery letter to DPN dated 17.05.2022
A43	Debts restructuring agreement dated 28.06.2021
A44	Legal notice dated 15.06.2023
A45 to A49	Statement of accounts

¶62

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Balaji Sales Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Balaji Sales Corporation

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