Allowed

Canara Bank v. Manjunath

DRT25 Jul 2025OA/1543/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Applicant's Original Application filed under Section 19 of the RDB Act for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The Defendants appeared ex parte. The Tribunal held the evidence sufficient, acknowledged vehicle repossession, and awarded recovery of the principal plus interest.

What did the court decide?

Issued a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 65,41,764.17 plus 8% p.a. interest, to be recovered jointly and severally from defendants.

Canara Bank versus Manjunath — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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 Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.1543/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Having its head office at No.112, J.C. Road, Bangalroe-560002 And one of its branch office called J.P. Nagar II Phase Branch, Bangalore-560078 Rep. by its Senior Manager, Mr. Rajesh Kumar … APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Mr. Manjunath J S/o. Jaganath C.S. Aged about 42 years, No.22, 8^th Cross, Hoskerehalli BSK III Stage, Benglauru-560085

¶9

Mr. Ganesh A.N. S/o. Nanjundappa Aged about 54 years, No.11, 9^th Cross, 2^nd Main, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-560018 …DEFENDANTS

¶10

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶11

Applicant : Smt. Sushreepriya Mohanty, Defendants : Exparte

OA. No. 1543/2022

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 defendants for Rs.65,41,764.17 (Rupees Sixty Five Lakh Forty One Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Four and Seventeen Paise only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶16

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed vehicle loan of Rs.29,00,000/- for purchasing a Tourist Bus.

¶17

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facility, the defendants have executed necessary loan documents.

¶18

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, 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 accounts as NPA. The applicant bank seizes the vehicle under the contractual obligation on 25.02.2018.

¶19

OA. No. 1543/2022

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 28.06.2024.

¶23

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 A16 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the

¶25

contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶26

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶27

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants? ii) What order are to be passed?

¶28

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶29

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶30

remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and

¶31

OA. No. 1543/2022

¶32

¶33

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 and execution of tripartite agreement agreeing creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶34

Since the OA claim is arrived at by calculating agreed rate of interest, penal interest/default interest, and also the fact that hypothecated vehicle already repossessed which this Tribunal considers as on the higher side, pendentalite and future interest is awarded at reduced rate of 8.00% p.a.

¶35

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

¶36

In the result, OA.No.1543/2022 stands allowed,

¶37

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

¶38

Rs.65,41,764.17 (Rupees Sixty Five Lakh Forty One Thousand

¶39

Seven Hundred Sixty Four and Seventeen Paise only) with further

¶40

OA. No. 1543/2022

¶41

¶42

interest of 8.00% 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

¶43

the same to be recovered by proceeding against defendants

¶44

jointly, severally and personally.

¶45

ii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶49

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

¶50

with this Final Order.

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶54

[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].

¶55

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA. No. 1543/2022

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶60

AW-1: Nidhi Srivastava, Assistant Manager of the applicant bank.

¶61

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶62

Annexure	Particulars
A1	Affidavit Evidence
A2	List of documents
A3	Loan application
A4	Driving license
A5	Sanction letter dated 24.03.2015
A6	Hypothecation agreement dated 24.03.2015
A7	Letter of undertaking dated 24.03.2015
A8	Guarantee covering letter dated 24.03.2015
A9	Guarantee agreement dated 24.03.2015
A10	Vehicle particulars dated 12.06.2015
A11	Vehicle registration certificate
A12	Smart card registration
A13	Fitness certificate of the vehicle
A14	Seizure of the vehicle
A15	Letter of revival dated 11.10.2019
A16	Statement of account

¶63

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Manjunath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Manjunath

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