Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Ms Mallela Infrastructure Private Limited

DRT25 Jul 2025OA/1542/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's Recovery Certificate application against the defaulting corporate borrower and individual guarantors who participated ex parte. Pending interest was reduced to 9.20% p.a. from the filing date, and recovery proceedings were ordered against the scheduled properties and other assets.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 3,60,17,071 with interest at 9.20% p.a. recoverable from schedule property and other assets of all defendants jointly and severally.

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Mallela Infrastructure Private… — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 25^th Day of July, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA. No.1542/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Punjab National Bank Jayanagar Branch, 1382, 32^nd Cross, 4^th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560078 Rep. by its Stressed Assets Targeted Resolution and Action (SASTRA) Raheja Towers, No.26-27, M.G. Road, Bangalore – 560001 and Authorised Officer and GPA Holder, Sri. Chandrajeet Kumar … APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

M/s. Mallela Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Represented through Directors Mrs. Latha Preeti P.M & M. Pawan Kumar #540, 17^th Cross, 17^th Main, 4^th Sector, HSR Layout, Bangalore – 560102

¶10

Mrs. Latha Preeti P M Aged about 40 years W/o. Pawan Kumar M # 307/7, 23^rd Cross, 6^th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560082

¶11

Mr. M. Pawan Kumar Aged about 46 years S/o. M. Nagireddy # 307/7, 23^rd Cross, 6^th Block,

¶12

OA. No. 1542/2022

¶13

¶14

Jayanagar, Bangalore-560082 ...DEFENDANTS

¶15

Counsel on record/appeared for: Applicant : Smt. Sushreepriya Mohanty Defendants : Exparte

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

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 defendants for Rs.3,60,17,071/- (Rupees Three Crore Sixty Lakh Seventeen Thousand and Seventy One only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that, as the defendant No.1 is a private limited company represented by its Directors have availed the non-fund credit facilities as follows: i) ILC/FLC of Rs.150.00 lakhs and ii) ILG/FLG of Rs.350.00 lakhs.

¶19

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

¶20

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan amount promptly and

¶21

OA. No. 1542/2022

¶22

¶23

regularly, the defendants failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶24

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.

¶25

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 28.06.2023.

¶26

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed their Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A3 to A19 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:

¶29

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

¶30

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶31

OA. No. 1542/2022

¶32

¶33

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶34

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶35

remains unrebutted as defendants 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 facility as stated in the OA, creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. The liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶36

Since the OA claim is arrived at by calculating agreed rate of interest, penal interest/default interest, which this Tribunal considers as on the higher side, pendentalite and future interest is awarded at fixed rate.

¶37

Hence in view of the above finding which cover both the

¶38

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

¶39

OA. No. 1542/2022

¶40

¶41

In the result, OA.No.1542/2022 stands allowed,

¶42

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.3,60,17,071/- (Rupees Three Crore Sixty Lakh Seventeen Thousand and Seventy One only) with further interest of 9.20% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from defendants, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against schedule. The schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶43

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

¶44

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally, defendant No.2 and 3 personally and other their assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶45

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.

¶46

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

¶47

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶48

OA. No. 1542/2022

¶49

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶50

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

¶51

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶52

[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 July 2025].

¶53

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶54

ANNEXURES

¶55

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶56

AW-1: E. Shivakumari, Chief Manager of the applicant bank.

¶57

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶58

Annexure	Date	Particulars
A1		Applicant Evidence
A2		List of Documents
A3	20.09.2019	Letter of authority issued by the defendant
A4	-	Loan application
A5	04.10.2019	Sanction letter
A6	09.10.2019	Extract copy of Board Resolution of the defendant company
A7	15.10.2019	Master Agreement for documentary credit
A8	16.10.2019	Letter of acknowledgment of terms and conditions
A9	15.10.2019	Agreement of Guarantee by Pawan Kumar
A10	15.10.2019	Agreement of Guarantee by Latha Preeti

¶59

OA. No. 1542/2022

¶60

¶61

A11	15.10.2019	Affidavit byCompany
A12	15.10.2019	Master Agreement
A13	15.10.2019	General Counter Indemnity
A14	27.09.2006	Gift Deed
A15	15.10.2019	MODTD
A16	04.10.2021	Recall notice
A17	04.10.2021	Letter of Invocation of BG
A18	13.10.2021	SARFAESI Notice
A19	-	Statement of Account of A/c.No. 1287009301013892

¶62

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Punjab National Bank v. Ms Mallela Infrastructure Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Ms Mallela Infrastructure Private Limited

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

Canara Bank versus Sh Harkirat Singh Dhillon

Bank of India versus Sh Sarbjeet Singh @ Sarabjeet Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Buta Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Naseeb Chand

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/s Laxmi Bhandar

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Patanjali Chikitsalay