Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri. Mahesh K Prop.Ms Vyshail Fashions

DRT30 Oct 2025OA/1623/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL allowed Original Application filed by Canara Bank seeking recovery certificate. Tribunal found loan availed, documents proved, and defendant in default. Order issued for recovery of principal with reduced simple interest at 10% p.a. due to prior asset sale under SARFAESI.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 40,93,463/- plus interest @10% p.a. (simple) from date of filing till realization. Defendant's personal and other assets liable for balance.

Canara Bank versus Sri. Mahesh K Prop.Ms Vyshail Fashions — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 30^th Day of October, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1623/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Kollegala Branch – 000 795 PB No. 14, Atchams Mansion, 7-4-34, Southern Extn Road, Kollegal – 571 440, Chamrajanagar District

¶7

Represented by its Senior Manager and Chief Manager,

¶8

Sri. D Vijayasekar …APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Sri. Mahesh K S/o. Kamanayaka Prop. Vyshali Fashions At. Kunagalli Village, Kollegal Taluk, Chamarajanagar District – 571 440 ...DEFENDANT

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant Defendant

¶13

: Nandish N J : Ex parte

¶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 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendant for Rs. 40,93,463/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Four

¶17

2 OA-1623/2022

¶18

Hundred and Sixty Three Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed a cash

¶20

credit loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) for the purpose of business improvement on 23.07.2014.

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loan, the defendant executed the necessary loan document along with simple mortgage deed.

¶22

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan amount promptly and regularly, the defendant failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA. The applicant bank has stated in evidence affidavit that 05.01.2024 submitting that, the applicant bank sold the secured assets under SARFAESI act, 2002 for a sum of Rs. 33.60 lakhs. 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set ex parte on 25.04.2024.

¶25

3 OA-1623/2022

¶26

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

¶27

Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-10 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶28

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.

¶29

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶30

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶31

claim as against the defendant?

¶32

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶33

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶34

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains

¶35

unrebutted as defendant 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 accounts. The liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

4 OA-1623/2022

¶39

find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal

¶40

is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶41

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are availed for Business purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, and there also that the secured asset is sold, this Tribunal of the view that OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 10.00%(simple).

¶42

In the result, OA.No.1623/2022 stands allowed,

¶43

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

¶44

Rs. 40,93,463/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Four

¶45

Hundred and Sixty Three Only) with further interest @10.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendant personally, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA.

¶46

ii) In the event of failure of the defendant to pay the aforesaid amount, the applicant bank is at liberty to proceed the defendant personally and his other assets are liable to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶47

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶48

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

¶49

5 OA-1623/2022

¶50

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

¶51

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶52

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in

¶53

terms of this final order.

¶54

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶55

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

¶56

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶57

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in

¶58

the Open Court, this the 30^th Day of October, 2025].

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

(T. RAJESH)

¶61

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶62

ANNEXURES

¶63

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶64

AW-1: Ranjan Kumar, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶65

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶66

Exhibit	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	Application form for loans to MICRO & SMALL ENTERPRISES(MSEs)
	dt.23.07.2014
A2	Sanction communication dt. 16.08.2014 executed by defendant

¶67

6 OA-1623/2022

¶68

A3	Request for overdraft facility dt. 16.08.2014 executed by defendant
A4	Letter of undertaking dt. 16.08.2014 executed by defendant
A5	Cash credit agreement dt. 16.08.2014 executed by defendant
A6	Simple mortgage deed dt. 16.08.2014 executed by defendant in favour of applicant. The document is registered as no. KOG-1- 01380-2014-15 in book-1, stored in CD no. KOGD62 in the office of Kollegal
A7 & A8	Letter of revival executed by defendant on 29.06.2017 and 20.06.2020
A9	Legal notice dated 05.08.2022, postal receipt and returned cover
A10	Certified statement of account along certificate

¶69

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

-Nil -

-Nil -

Sd/-

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Sri. Mahesh K Prop.Ms Vyshail Fashions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri. Mahesh K Prop.Ms Vyshail Fashions

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Kamaljit Singh

Ms General Trading Company versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Piara Singh

Ms R S Belvedere versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Ms Parwati Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. and others versus Bank of Baroda

Standard Chartered Bank versus M/s Nanma Marketing Pvt. Ltd.