Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Kalamma

DRT12 Nov 2025OA/1544/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application seeking a recovery certificate of approx. Rs. 26.82 lakhs. Finding defendants absent and evidence unrebutted, the Tribunal granted recovery of the principal amount with reduced interest at 6.00% pa. It also permitted recovery from schedule properties and personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Issued Recovery Certificate for Rs. 26,81,934/- plus interest at 6% per annum; allowed recovery from schedule property and assets jointly and severally.

Union Bank of India versus Kalamma — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 12^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1544/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Union Bank of India Channapatna Branch, No.219/4-10, BM road, Kuvempunagar, Channapatna – 562 160 Ramanagara Dist.

¶7

By its principal officer and Senior Manager

¶8

Sharon C. Nelson …APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Kalamma W/o. late Kalaiah Aged about 59 years

¶11

Raju S/o. late Kalaiah Aged about 30 years

¶12

3. Basavaraju S/o. late Kalaiah Aged about 32 years

¶13

Siddaraju S/o. late Kalaiah Aged about 35 years

¶14

Sarajamma D/o. late Kalaiah Aged about 33 years

¶15

Durgaiah S/o. Late Kalaiah Aged about 40 years

¶16

OA-1544/2023

¶17

¶18

All are residing at: Vadderahalli Village, KB Halli Post, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara Dist. – 562 160 ...DEFENDANTS

¶19

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶20

Applicant : M R Rajini Defendants : Ex parte

¶21

FINAL ORDER

¶22

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking for issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 26,81,934/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Four Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶23

It is the case of the applicant that, the 1^st defendant availed an agriculture term loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) on 20.03.2014.

¶24

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loan, the defendants executed the necessary loan documents along with simple mortgage deed and deed of hypothecation.

¶25

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.

¶26

OA-1544/2023

¶27

¶28

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this

¶29

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

¶30

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 19.12.2024.

¶31

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof

¶32

Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-26 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶33

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.

¶34

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶35

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

¶36

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶37

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶38

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains

¶39

unrebutted as defendants 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 sufficient to prove availment of credit facility as stated in the OA, creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the

¶40

OA-1544/2023

¶41

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

applicant is well within the limitation.

¶45

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

¶46

find both these issues are in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶47

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility are availed for Agricultural purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal is the view that the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

¶48

In the result, OA.No.1544/2023 stands allowed,

¶49

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 26,81,934/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Four Only) with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA 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 and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶50

OA-1544/2023

¶51

¶52

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

¶53

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants

¶54

jointly, severally and personally and their assets are liable for balance amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶55

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶56

which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of 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 the Open Court, this the 12^th Day of November, 2025].

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA-1544/2023

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶71

AW-1: Sharon C Nelson, D/o. C B Nelson, Branch Manager, of

¶72

Applicant Bank.

¶73

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶74

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	20.05.2014	Loan application
A2	20.05.2014	Sanction letter
A3	20.05.2014	Demand promissory note
A4	20.05.2014	Take delivery letter to DPN
A5	20.05.2014	Agreement for term loan
A6	20.05.2014	Common deed of hypothecation of crops/stocks
A7	20.05.2014	Guarantee agreement
A8	27.04.2017	Acknowledgement of debt/liability by the borrowers
A9	27.04.2017	Demand promissory note
A10	27.04.2017	Take delivery letter to DPN
A11	20.02.2020	Demand promissory note
A12	20.02.2020	Take delivery letter to DPN
A13	10.02.2021	Acknowledgement of debt/liability by the borrowers
A14	15.03.2014	Deed of simple mortgage
A15	-----	RTC for Sy.no. 57/1
A16	-----	RTC for Sy.no. 99
A17	-----	Encumbrance certificate for the Sy.no. 57/1 & Sy.no. 99
A18	19.06.2023	Legal notice
A19	-------	Returned postal of D1
A20	-------	Returned postal of D2
A21	-------	Returned postal of D3
A22	-------	Returned postal of D4

¶75

OA-1544/2023

¶76

¶77

A23	-------	Returned postal of D5
A24	-------	Returned postal of D6
A25	-------	6 postal receipt
A26	30.03.2023	Statement showing the balance outstanding in the loan A/c. no. of the defendant

¶78

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶79

-Nil -

¶80

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶81

-Nil -

¶82

Sd/-

¶83

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Kalamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Kalamma

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

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Kala Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Malkeet Singh @Malkit Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Hopstop Private Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S Ambey India

State Bank of India versus Saravanan Mani

Canara Bank versus Mahantesh Arjun