Allowed

Bank of India v. Abigaana Weddings

DRT29 Aug 2025OA/1582/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application seeking a recovery certificate for a term loan default. The defendants appeared ex parte. Evidence regarding loan availment, hypothecation, and defaults was admissible and sufficient to prove the claim.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate directed for Rs. 30,87,932.00 with 10% p.a. simple interest; recovery from assets including hypothecated movables; cost of proceedings allowed.

Bank of India versus Abigaana Weddings — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 29^th Day of July, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1582/2023

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Bank of India, Having a branch office At HSR Layout, 50, 19^th Main Road, Sector 3, HSR Layout, Bengaluru- 560 102, Represented by its Chief Manager And authority letter Mr. Shashivardhana K.K., S/o Krishnaian K.V, Aged about 37 years.

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

M/s. Abigaana Weddings, Represented by its proprietor, Ms. Abhiyakthi, No. 48/796, 3^rd Floor, Flat No. A 302, Sumo Sonnet Apartment, A Block, Kudlu Main Road, AECS layout, Hosapalya, Bengaluru- 560 068. 2. Ms. Abhivyakthi, W/D/O, not known, Age: Major, No. 48/796, 3^rd Floor, Flat No. A 302, Sumo Sonnet Apartment, A Block, Kudlu Main Raod AECS Layout, Hosapalya, Bengaluru- 560 068. ...DEFENDANTS

¶9

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶10

Applicant : Sri. K. Raveendran Defendants : Exparte

OA 1582/2023

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 for Rs. 30,87,932.00 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Two Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants. The defendant No.1 is a Proprietorship firm and defendant No.2 is the proprietor of the same.

¶15

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants availed a Term loan of Rs. 27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakh Only) from the applicant.

¶16

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with On demand promissory note, hypothecation cum loan agreement, MCLR agreement and supplemental term loan agreement.

¶17

It is further contended that, the defendants despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, failed in compliance of the same, resulting in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶18

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for

¶19

OA 1582/2023

¶20

¶21

the amount due in the account.

¶22

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 04.10.2024.

¶23

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 A-15 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶24

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.

¶25

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶26

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

¶27

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 remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered

¶30

by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove the availment of credit facilities as stated in the

¶31

OA 1582/2023

¶32

¶33

OA, creation of hypothecation as claimed by the applicant bank and

¶34

the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the

¶35

defendants and the claim as the amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶36

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, this Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence this

¶37

Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶38

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶39

availed for Business purpose and also that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal is of the view that the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 10.00% (simple).

¶40

In the result, OA.No.1582/2023, stands allowed,

¶41

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

¶42

Rs. 30,87,932.00 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Nine

¶43

Hundred Thirty Two Only) with further interest @ 10.00% p.a. (Simple),from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants and personally from defendant No.2 after giving credit to

¶44

all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA

¶45

OA 1582/2023

¶46

¶47

and allowed the same to be recovered by proceedings against the

¶48

defendants and personally from defendant No.2 and also proceeding

¶49

against her assets including hypothecated movables. Schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶50

ii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶54

iv) Interim application pending, if any, are disposed of with

¶55

this Final Order.

¶56

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶57

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

¶58

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶59

[Dictated to the Stenographer (AJ), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 29^th Day of August, 2025].

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶62

ANNEXURES

¶63

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶64

AW-1: Pankaj Kumar Ambastha S/o Ashok Kumar Ambasta, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶65

OA 1582/2023

¶66

¶67

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶68

Exhibit	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	Applicant’s Evidence
A2	List of Documents
A3	Application form for stand up India scheme loan dated 16.08.2019
A4	Sanction letter dated 25.09.2019
A5	Demand promissory note dated 25.09.2019 for Rs. 27.00 lakhs
A6	Agreement L-516 for TL dated 25.09.2019
A7	Hypothecation cum loan agreement for TL dated 05.09.2019
A8	MCLR agreement dated 25.09.2019
A9	Authorization letter dated Nil
A10 & 10a	Application of sanction letter dated 28.06.2021
A11	Supplemental term loan agreement dated 28.06.2021
A12	Installment letter in L-440 dated 28.06.2021
A13	RBLR agreement dated 28.06.2021
A14	Acknowledgement of debt/ securities dated 28.06.2021
A15	Statement of account in respect of TL a/c No. 843870410000025

¶69

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

¶70

-Nil -

¶71

-Nil -

¶72

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of India v. Abigaana Weddings

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Abigaana Weddings

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

Punjab National Bank versus Kavita

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Amit Kumar

Central Bank of India versus M/S Fortress Packaging Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Lanvin Exports versus Canara Bank

Mrs Gayathri S and Another versus Tumkur Grain Merchants Cooperative Bank Limited

K R Nagesh versus Katta Radhakrishnaiah Nagesh