Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Kiran Kotian

DRT30 Oct 2025OA/1500/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application for a recovery certificate against the respondent issuing house. Despite the respondent appearing ex parte, the undisputed documentary evidence proved the loan availment, security creation, and default. The Tribunal upheld the claim but reduced the interest rate to 12% simple per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued allowing the applicant to recover Rs. 70,38,218.86 with interest @12.00% p.a. from the respondent personally and other assets.

Bank of Baroda versus Kiran Kotian — Banking and Recovery | 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

¶4

Presiding Officer OA.No.1500/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Bank of Baroda Mysore branch 765, Gandhi square PB no.40 Mysore – 570 001

¶7

Through its Chief Manager Mr. Atul Kundlik shirke …APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Mr. Kiran Kotian Prop. Of M/s. Nagaraj Paddy Paraboil & Drier Industry

¶10

Having Address At: #64-F-1/F-2, DTC Layout, Hootagalli Industrial Area, Mysore – 570 018

¶11

Also at: House no. 4-312A, Gythri niwas, RV nagar, moodbidri – 574 197 Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka – 574 197 ...DEFENDANT

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : VS Associates Defendant : Ex parte

¶14

2 OA-1500/2022

¶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. 70,38,218.86/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Eighteen and Paisa Eighty Six Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶17

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

¶18

Cash credit of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) on 19.07.2010

¶19

First Enhancing the cash credit of Rs. 54,00,000/(Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs Only)

¶20

Second enhancing the cash credit of Rs. 70,00,000/(Rupees Seventy Lakhs Only)

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendant executed the necessary loan document along with 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

3 OA-1500/2022

¶24

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this

¶25

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

¶26

Despite, entered appearance and filed vakalat, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set ex parte on 29.01.2024.

¶27

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-15 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:

¶30

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

¶31

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶32

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶33

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains

¶34

unrebutted as defendant remained ex parte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are

¶35

sufficient to prove availment of credit facilities as stated in the OA,

¶36

creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the

¶37

4 OA-1500/2022

¶38

accounts. The liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount

¶39

due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the

¶40

applicant is well within the limitation.

¶41

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal

¶42

find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal

¶43

is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶44

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶45

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

¶46

by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal of the view that OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 12.00%(simple).

¶47

In the result, OA.No.1500/2022 stands allowed,

¶48

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of

¶49

Rs. 70,38,218.86/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand

¶50

Two Hundred and Eighteen and Paisa Eighty Six Only) with further interest @12.00% 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.

¶51

ii) In the event of failure of the defendant to pay the

¶52

aforesaid amount, the applicant bank is at liberty to proceed the defendant personally and his other assets are liable to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶53

5 OA-1500/2022

¶54

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶55

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

¶56

receipt of the order.

¶57

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

¶58

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶59

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in

¶60

terms of this final order.

¶61

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶62

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

¶63

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶64

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

¶65

the Open Court, this the 30^th Day of October, 2025].

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶68

ANNEXURES

¶69

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶70

AW-1: Shakeel Batcha Mohamed S, S/o. Syed Mohamed, Chief

¶71

Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶72

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶73

Exhibit	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	Letter dated 19.07.2010

¶74

6 OA-1500/2022

¶75

A2	Composite hypothecation agreement dated 19.07.2010 executed bydefendant in favour of the applicant
A3	Demand promissory note dated 19.07.2010 for Rs. 24 lakhs issued by defendant in favour of the applicant
A4	Declarations cum undertaking cum authority dated 19.07.2010 issued bydefendant in favour of the applicant
A5	Letter of continuing security dated 19.07.2010 executed by defendant in favour of the applicant
A6	Application dated 28.12.2011
A7	Composite hypothecation agreement dated 28.12.2011 executed by defendant in favour of the applicant towards availing rs.16 lakhs cash credit
A8	Demand promissory note dated 28.12.2011 for Rs. 16 lakhs issued by defendant in favour of the applicant
A9	Declarations cum undertaking cum authority dated 28.12.2011 issued bydefendant in favour of the applicant
A10	Letter of continuing security dated 28.12.2011 executed by defendant in favour of the applicant
A11	Acknowledgement of liability dated 28.12.2011 26.03.2013, 19.01.2016,16.01.2019,30.10.2021 and 11.01.2022
A12	Letter dated 18.07.2022
A13	Letter dated 01.08.2022
A14	notice dated 18.08.2022
A15	True extract of statement of accounts pertaining to the defendants loan accounts

¶76

Witness Examined for the Defendant: List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant:

-Nil -

-Nil -

Sd/-

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Kiran Kotian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Kiran Kotian

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.