Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Ms Arvind Constructions

DRT19 Nov 2025OA/1526/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against M/s. Arvind Constructions and its proprietor for a loan overdraft of Rs. 35.73 lakhs, noting uncontroverted documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate drawn for Rs. 35,73,601.73 plus 10% p.a. simple interest from 29.02.2024; recovery allowed against schedule property and other assets.

Union Bank of India versus Ms Arvind Constructions — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 19^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1526/2024

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Union Bank of India, SC Road Branch, #71/1, 1^st Floor, Brigade Plaza, Subedar Chetram Road, Near Anand Rao Circle, Bengaluru -560001, Rep. by its Chief Manager,

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

M/s. Arvind Constructions, Represented by its Proprietor, Sri. Arvind, No.26, Ejipura Main Road, Vivek Nagar, Ejipura, Bengaluru -560047.

¶9

Sri. Arvind R, S/o. Prabhudas Kanakaraj, Proprietor Arvind Constructions, No.26, Ejipura Main Road, Vivek Nagar, Ejipura, Bengaluru -560047.

¶10

And also at No. 9-6/1, Cherlopalle, Chittor, Andhra Pradesh -517004.

¶11

And also at No. 206, Khata No.182,

¶12

OA 1526/2024

¶13

¶14

BBMP Khata No.663, Kadugodi, Bodarhalli Hobli, Mahadevpura, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru -560067.

¶15

...DEFENDANTS

¶16

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶17

Applicant : Sri. Prabhu Rao CB, Defendants : Exparte

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

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. 35,73,601.73 (Rupees thirty-five lakh seventy-three thousand six hundred one and paisa seventy-three only) with further interest thereon and cost from the Defendants.

¶20

It is the case of the Applicant that Defendant No.1, a proprietorship concern, and Defendant No.2, its sole proprietor, had availed an Overdraft (General) facility of Rs. 35,00,000/(Rupees Thirty-five Lakh only) for the purpose of the business of Defendant No.1.

¶21

It is also the case of the Applicant that, in view of the above loan, the Defendants executed necessary loan documents in

¶22

OA 1526/2024

¶23

¶24

favour of the Applicant bank to secure the loan and also had created mortgage over the schedule property.

¶25

It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendants, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing with the Terms and Conditions for the loans, failed in complying with the same, 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, taking out the summons, there was no appearance of Defendants. Hence, they were called absent and set ex parte on 18.12.2024.

¶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 A-1 to A-11, 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 the proof affidavit.

¶30

OA 1526/2024

¶31

¶32

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: i) Whether the Applicant succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the Defendants?

¶33

ii) If so, to what extent?

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

The evidence tendered by the Applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidence put forth by the Applicant is found admissible and sufficient to prove the averments made in the OA, and the default committed by the Defendants in repaying the loan amount due. The liability of the

¶36

Defendants and the loan amount due are also proved by the above documents.

¶37

Hence in view of the above findings this Tribunal comes

¶38

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

¶39

The OA has been filed within the period of limitation. There is no capitalization of penal interest. Since the credit facility was availed for business purpose, pendente lite and future interest are awarded at 10.00% per annum (simple

¶40

OA 1526/2024

¶41

¶42

interest). The prayer for interest with monthly rests and for

¶43

penal interest for the future period is hereby declined.

¶44

In the result, OA.No.1526/2024, is allowed,

¶45

i) The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum

¶46

of Rs. 35,73,601.73 (Rupees thirty five lakh seventy three thousand six hundred one and paisa seventy three only) with pendente lite and future interest of 10.00% p.a. (simple) from 29.02.2024 till the realization, from the Defendants jointly, severally and personally after giving credit to 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 property. Property schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶47

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

¶48

the loan amount due from Defendants jointly, severally and personally, then the Applicant bank is at liberty to procced against their other assets for the recovery of the amounts.

¶49

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶50

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

¶51

OA 1526/2024

¶52

¶53

date of receipt of the order.

¶54

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

¶55

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶56

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

¶57

in terms of this final order.

¶58

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶59

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

¶60

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶61

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

¶62

in the open Court on this the 19^th day of November, 2025)

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

(T. RAJESH)

¶65

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶66

ANNEXURES

¶67

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶68

AW-1: Smt. S. Sujatha, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶69

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶70

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	29.07.2022	Loan Application
A2	--	Sanction
A3	03.08.2022	Demand promissory note
A4	03.08.2022	Letter of continuity
A5	03.08.2022	Letter of undertaking

¶71

OA 1526/2024

¶72

¶73

A6	03.08.2022	Letter pf general lien and set off
A7	03.08.2022	MOTD
A8	22.02.2024	Demand notice
A9	--	Postal receipts
A10	--	Acknowledgements
A11	--	Statement of account

¶74

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

¶75

Sd/-

¶76

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Ms Arvind Constructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Ms Arvind Constructions

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

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus Sh. Jagar @Jaggar Singh @Ujjagar Singh

State Bank of India versus Manjit Kaur

Ms Supreme Briquettes versus Hdfc Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Praveen

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Harjeet Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Raja Ram Mishra