Allowed

Canara Bank v. Print World

DRT30 Oct 2025OA/1446/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for recovery certificate. Bank proved availed loans, defaults, and creation of security interest. Tribunal granted recovery with interest capped at 11% p.a. and authorized execution against movables and personally.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.23,53,000 with interest at 11% p.a.; Recovery Certificate issued for execution against movables and personally.

Canara Bank versus Print World — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 30^th Day of October, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.1446/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) HSR Layout Branch, No.1135, Ground Floor, 17^th Cross, 80 feet road, Sector-7, HSR Layout, Bangalore-560102

¶7

… APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

M/s. Print World Represented by its Proprietrix, Smt. Pooja, Aged about 45 years, W/o. Sri. L Jagadish Kumar No.108/A, 1^st Main, 5^th Cross, Opp: Chamarajpet Police Station, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-560018 Also at, No.20, 6^th Main Road, Industrial Area, N S Palya, BTM Layout, Bangalore-560076 ...DEFENDANT

¶10

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶11

Applicant : Mr. Rohith R Achar, Defendant : Exparte

OA. No.1446/2022

: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 defendant for Rs.23,53,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Fifty Three Thousand only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶16

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed the

¶17

Following credit facilities:

¶18

Term loan of Rs.6,00,000/- on 18.07.2019 for the purchase of printing machinery;

¶19

Overdraft facility of Rs.10,00,000/- on 03.08.2019

¶20

Working Capital Term loan of Rs.2,50,000/- on 20.02.2020

¶21

Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line (GECL) facility of Rs.3,00,000/- on 30.06.2020

¶22

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facilities, the defendants executed necessary loan documents apart from the creation of security interest by way of hypothecation over the Schedule.

¶23

OA. No.1446/2022

¶24

¶25

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.

¶26

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the accounts.

¶27

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 06.11.2024.

¶28

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A20 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶29

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.

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶31

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

¶32

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶33

OA. No.1446/2022

¶34

¶35

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶36

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶37

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, creation of security interest 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.

¶38

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

¶39

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶40

was 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 11.00%

OA. No.1446/2022

p.a.(simple).

In the result, OA.No.1446/2022 stands allowed,

¶45

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.23,53,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Fifty Three Thousand only) with further interest of 11.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from the defendants, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against defendant personally and also by proceeding against the schedule hypothecated movables. The schedule to the

¶46

OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶47

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

¶48

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant personally and her other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan account.

¶49

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.

¶50

OA. No.1446/2022

¶51

¶52

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

¶53

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶54

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

¶55

with this Final Order.

¶56

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶57

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

¶58

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 30^th Day of October 2025].

¶59

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶60

ANNEXURES

¶61

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶62

AW-1: Mr. Karthik Reddy C, Chief Manager of the applicant bank.

¶63

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶64

Annexure	Date	Particulars
A1	17.07.2019	Sanction letter
A2	17.07.2019	Composite Hypothecation Agreement
A3	18.07.2019	Stamped consideration receipt
A4	11.07.2019	Sanction letter
A5	03.08.2019	Stamped consideration receipt
A6	03.08.2019	Composite Hypothecation agreement
A7	27.01.2020	Sanction letter

¶65

OA. No.1446/2022

¶66

A8	20.02.2020	Stamped consideration receipt
A9	26.06.2020	Sanction letter
A10	30.06.2020	Offer letter
A11	30.06.2020	On Demand Pro Note
A12	30.06.2020	Agreement t cum Deed of hypothecation
A13	30.06.2020	Letter of Undertaking
A14	30.06.2020	Link Letter
A15	25.06.2022	Letter of Revival
A16	27.08.2022	Legal notice
A17	-	Account Extract (Term loan)
A18	-	Account Extract (OD)
A19	-	Account Extract (WCTL)
A20	-	Account Extract (GECL)

¶67

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Print World

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Print World

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Kamaljit Singh

Ms General Trading Company versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Piara Singh

Ms R S Belvedere versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Ms Parwati Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. and others versus Bank of Baroda

Standard Chartered Bank versus M/s Nanma Marketing Pvt. Ltd.