Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/s. Manjunath Auto Machine

DRT28 Nov 2025OA/1622/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for issuance of recovery certificate against a proprietor and his firm for loan defaults, modifying interest to 11% simple despite the claim being unchallenged due to default appearance.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of recovery certificate for Rs.52,02,113/- with future interest at 11% p.a. (simple); recovery against respondents jointly, severally and personally.

Canara Bank versus M/s. Manjunath Auto Machine — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 28^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA. No.1622/2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Canara Bank Jayalakshmipuram Branch, No.6, ‘Ganga’, Temple Road, Jayalakshmipuram, Mysore District, Mysore – 570012 Rep. by its Senior Manager Sri. Dayananda N

¶8

… APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

M/s. Manjunath Auto Machine No.C-29, KSSIDC Industrial Estate, Metagali, Mysore – 570016 Rep. By its Proprietor Sri. Manjunath N

¶11

Sri. Manjunath N S/o. Sri. Nanja Shetty, Aged about 36 years, Proprietor of M/s. Manjunath Auto Machine, No.352/A, 8^th Cross, Shubash Nagara, Hebbal, Mysore - 570016 ...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Mr. Raghavendra G K Defendants : Exparte

¶14

:FINAL ORDER:

¶15

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed

¶16

under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for

¶17

OA. No.1622/2023

¶18

¶19

seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.52,02,113/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakh Two Thousand One Hundred and Thirteen only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed the following credit facilities:

¶21

i. Overdraft facility of Rs.11,00,000/- on 15.03.2019

¶22

ii. Term loan of Rs.25,55,900/- on 23.04.2019

¶23

iii. GECL loan of Rs.7,30,000/- on 30.06.2020

¶24

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

¶25

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, 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 account as 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

OA. No.1622/2023

¶28

¶29

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 09.10.2024.

¶30

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.

¶31

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the

¶32

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

¶33

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶34

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

¶35

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶36

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶37

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶38

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 facilities as stated in the OA, as to the execution of loan documents as

¶39

OA. No.1622/2023

¶40

¶41

claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶42

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 to be allowed.

¶43

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities were availed for business purpose and also that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 11.00% (simple).

¶44

In the result, OA.No.1622/2023 stands allowed,

¶45

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.52,02,113/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakh Two Thousand One Hundred and Thirteen only) with further interest of 11.00% 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 the same to

¶46

be recovered by proceeding against the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their other assets of the defendants,

¶47

OA. No.1622/2023

¶48

¶49

including the schedule are liable for all such amounts due under the loan account. The schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶50

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

¶51

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶52

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶53

which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the 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 with this Final Order.

¶57

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶58

in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶59

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27^th Day of November 2025].

¶60

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA. No.1622/2023

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶65

AW-1: Elsy K K, Chief Manager of the applicant bank.

¶66

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶67

Annexure	Date	Particulars
A1	15.03.2019	Request for over draft facilities
A2	15.03.2019	Cash credit agreement
A3	15.03.2019	On demandpromissorynote
A4	18.05.2020	Letter of renewal
A5	18.05.2020	Letter of renewal
A6	23.04.2019	Deed of hypothecation re: Mach	inery
A7	23.04.2019	Letter of Undertaking re: advances	loans/
A8	30.06.2020	Agreement cum Deed of Hypoth	ecation
A9	26.02.2021	Letter of Revival
A10	22.06.2021	Agreement cum Deed of Hypoth	ecation
A11 to A15	10.02.2023	Office copy of legal notice, receipts (2 Nos.,) and returned covers(2Nos.)	postal postal
A16	-	Statement of account extract No. 0566261010825	– A/c.
A17	-	Statement of account extract No. 0566768000231	– A/c.
A18	-	Statement of account extract No. 0566755000101	– A/c.
A19	-	Statement of account extract No. 0566717000028	– A/c.

¶68

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. M/s. Manjunath Auto Machine

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/s. Manjunath Auto Machine

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 (Corporation Bank) versus Vasantha Mary

Canara Bank versus Girithimappa G D

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus M/S Rapido Fashions

Ms Sandhya Granites versus Indian Overseas Bank

Ms Basaveshwara Rice Industries versus State Bank of India

Garudachala Properties Private Limited versus Capri Global Capital Limited