Allowed

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) v. Aarti Mahesh Hongekar

DRT8 Oct 2025OA/1507/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an Original Application under Section 19 of RDDBFA, 1993, filed by Canara Bank seeking a Recovery Certificate for an outstanding housing loan. The Tribunal allowed the application as the claim was unchallenged. Recovery of principal, interest, and costs is granted. The Tribunal set future interest at 8% simple interest, declining monthly rests and penal interest, and directed issuance of t

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate for Rs. 31,75,972.43 plus 8% simple interest from filing date till realization; permission to proceed against schedule property and personal assets.

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus Aarti Mahesh… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II,

¶2

BENGALURU

¶3

Dated this 8^th Day of October, 2025

¶4

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶5

Presiding Officer OA.No.1507/2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Canara bank, Shahapur Branch, Laxmi Narayana Building, Mahatmaphule Road, Belgaum District -590003. Rep. by its Agent and Chief manager,

¶8

…APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Smt. Aarti Mahesh Hongekar, W/o. Mahesh Hongekar,

¶11

Sri. Mahesh Krishna Hongekar, S/o. Krishna Hongekar,

¶12

Both are residing at Flat No. 202, 2^nd Floor, D-Wing, “Ganesh Baag”, Jakkeri Honda, Belgavi -590001.

¶13

...DEFENDANTS

¶14

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶15

Applicant : Sri. K. Shashidhar Parlathaya Defendants : Exparte

OA 1507/2023

FINAL ORDER

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 for Rs. 31,75,972.43 (Rupees thirty-one lakh seventy-five thousand nine hundred seventy-two and paisa forty-three only) with further interest thereon and cost from the Defendants.

¶20

It is the case of the Applicant that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 as borrower and Guarantor respectively had availed a Housing Loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-five lakh only) for purchase of residential flat under construction. The Defendants had executed a tripartite agreement with the builders of the said construction flat.

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above loan, the Defendants executed necessary loan documents in favour of the Applicant bank including mortgage over the schedule property to secure the loan.

¶22

It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendants, despite availing the credit facility, after agreeing with the Terms and Conditions for the loan, failed in complying with the same,

¶23

OA 1507/2023

¶24

¶25

resulting in defaults and consequentially turning the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset (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 account.

¶27

Despite issuance of summons, the Defendants failed to appear and were set ex parte on 27.06.2024 but subsequently appeared through counsel and filed I.A. No. 978/2025 to set aside the ex parte order, which was allowed with directions, that were duly complied with, following which they filed a written statement on 18.09.2025, it was rejected for being unsigned and unverified. And as the Defendants again failed to appear on the last date of hearing, they were once more set ex parte on 07.10.2025.

¶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 A-3 to A17, got the same marked in evidence.

¶29

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered

¶30

the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary

¶31

OA 1507/2023

¶32

¶33

evidence and the proof affidavit.

¶34

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶35

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

¶36

ii) If so, to what extent?

¶37

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶38

The case put forth by the Applicant in the Application

¶39

remains unrebutted as Defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the Applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidence put forth by the Applicant is found admissible and are sufficient to prove the averments made in the OA, and the defaults committed by the Defendants in repaying

¶40

the loan amount due. The liability of the Defendants and the loan amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the Applicant is well within the limitation.

¶41

Hence in view of the above findings this Tribunal comes

¶42

to the conclusion that the OA is liable to be allowed.

¶43

Taking into consideration the fact that the loan is availed

¶44

OA 1507/2023

¶45

¶46

by the Defendants for agricultural purposes and also the fact that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 8.00% (simple). The prayer for interest with monthly rests and for penal interest for the future period is hereby declined.

¶47

In the result, OA.No.1507/2023, is allowed,

¶48

i) The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum

¶49

of Rs. 31,75,972.43 (Rupees thirty one lakh seventy five thousand nine hundred seventy two and paisa forty three only) with pendente lite and future interest of 8.00% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the OA till the realization, from the Defendants jointly, severally and personally after giving credit to

¶50

all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA if any, and allow the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule properties. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶51

ii) Defendants personally and their assets are liable to be

¶52

proceeded against for the shortfall if any to recover the balance amount due.

¶53

OA 1507/2023

¶54

¶55

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶56

for which Applicant to file cost memo within seven days from the

¶57

date of receipt of the order.

¶58

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

¶59

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶60

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

¶61

in terms of this final order.

¶62

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶63

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

¶64

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶65

(Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me

¶66

in the open Court on this the 08^th day of October, 2025)

¶67

Sd/(T. RAJESH)

¶68

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶69

ANNEXURES

¶70

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶71

AW-1: Sri. Shankar Mishra, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶72

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶73

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	--	Evidence Affidavit

¶74

OA 1507/2023

¶75

¶76

A2	--	List of Documents
A3	21.11.2014	Loan Application
A4	21.11.2014	Sanction Letter
A5	03.12.2014	Housing loan agreement
A6	08.04.2014	Tripartite Agreement
A7	03.12.2024	Agreement to Mortgage
A8	02.09.2016	Registered Deed
A9	02.03.2018	Letter for time barred Debts
A10	19.11.2020	Letter addressed by defendant no.1
A11	22.01.2021	Letter of Revival
A12	05.04.2023	Legal Notice
A13	--	Postal receipts
A14	04.07.2023	Demand Notice
A15	--	Returned postal cover
A16	--	Returned postal cover
A17	--	Statement of loan account

¶77

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

¶78

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) v. Aarti Mahesh Hongekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) v. Aarti Mahesh Hongekar

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus Sumit

C Vijayakumari versus Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (Erstwhile Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited)

South Indian Bank versus Shashank

Ms Arch Spices Private Limited versus Icici Bank Limited

Idbi Bank versus M/S Atul Iron Works

Icici Bank Limited versus Sh. Aarif Khan