Allowed

Canara Bank v. M P Venkatesh Babu

DRT25 Nov 2025OA/1634/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993, the Tribunal allowed the bank's claim for a recovery certificate against the defendant for loan defaults. The defendant was absent, and the Tribunal awarded the claimed principal with interest reduced to 10% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 3,86,64,393.00 with further interest at 10% p.a. (simple) from date of filing OA till realization, recoverable personally and via schedule property.

Canara Bank versus M P Venkatesh Babu — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA

¶2

AT BENGALURU

¶3

Dated this 25^th Day of November, 2025

¶4

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1634/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank, Chamaraja Mohalla Branch, Krishnamurthypuram, Mysore 570 004, Represented by its Divisional manager, Sri. G. Janardhanam.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. M P Venkatesh Babu, S/o Sri R R Padmanabha Setty, Aged about 64 years, Proprietor of M/s. Amruth Farm, Having its office at No. 1177, Balakrishna Rao Road, Chamarajapuram, Mysore- 570004.

¶10

And residing at No. 67, D R Bendre Road, Aishwarya Nagar, Kuvempu Nagar, Mysore- 570 023.

¶11

And having his farm at: Sy No. 721/2, Harohalli, Bannuru Road, Mysore- 570028.

¶12

...DEFENDANT

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : V. Haridas Bhat Defendant : EXPARTE

OA 1634/2022

FINAL ORDER

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendant for Rs. 3,86,64,393.00 (Rupees Three Crore Eighty Six Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Three Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant bank, that the defendant has availed cash credit loan upto Rs. 2 crore 40 lakhs, vehicle loan of Rs. 21 lakhs and GECL loan of Rs. 48 lakhs.

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with on demand promissory note, hypothecation agreement and mortgage deed.

¶21

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, the defendant failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶22

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

Despite, Summons on defendant he failed to appear resulting the defendant being set exparte on 27.02.2024.

¶24

OA 1634/2022

¶25

¶26

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-64 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

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.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

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

¶30

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant 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, creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

OA 1634/2022

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶39

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶40

availed for Business and Vehicle purpose and also that the 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 10.00% (simple).

¶41

In the result, OA.No.1634/2022, stands allowed,

¶42

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 3,86,64,393.00 (Rupees Three Crore Eighty Six Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Three Only) with further interest @10.00 % p.a.(simple) as follows:-

¶43

a) OCC loan account of Rs. 3,14,59,103.00 (Rupees Three Crore Fourteen lakh Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred and Three Only) from the date of

¶44

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 and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against schedule property.

¶45

b) Vehicle loan account of Rs. 14,99,467.00 (Rupees Fourteen lakh Ninety

¶46

Nine Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Seven Only) from the defendant personally, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by

¶47

OA 1634/2022

¶48

¶49

proceeding against the defendant personally and his assets.

¶50

c) GECL loan account of Rs. 57,05,823.00 (Rupees Fifty Seven lakh Five Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Three Only) 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 and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against schedule property.

¶51

Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶52

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

¶53

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant personally

¶54

and his assets are liable for respective amounts due under the loan account.

¶55

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings which

¶56

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 and

¶58

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶59

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

¶60

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure)

OA 1634/2022

Rules, 1993.

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

¶65

Open Court, this the 25^th Day of November, 2025].

¶66

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶67

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶68

ANNEXURES

¶69

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶70

AW-1: G. Janardhanam, Divisional Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶71

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶72

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
		I Cash credit loan up to the limit of Rs. 2,40,00,000/-
A3	31.03.2011	Loan sanction memorandum
A4	31.03.2011	Request for overdraft facilities executed by the defendant
A5	31.03.2011	Cash credit agreement executed by the defendant
A6	31.03.2011	On demand promissory note for Rs. 75,00,000/- executed by the defendant
A7	31.03.2011	Undertaking letter submitted by the defendant
A8	07.06.2012	Letter addressed by the applicant bank to the defendant
A9	21.12.2012	Letter of sanction of renewal-cum-enhancement of OCC
A10	05.02.2013	Letter of renewal executed by the defendant
A11	05.02.2013	Letter of proprietorship executed by the defendant
A12	05.02.2013	Request for overdraft facility executed by the defendant
A13	05.02.2013	Link letter in respect of enhancement executed by the defendant
A14	05.02.2013	Letter extending the credit limits executed by the defendant
A15	05.02.2013	Link letter in respect of enhancement executed by the defendant

¶73

OA 1634/2022

¶74

¶75

A16	05.02.2013	Supplemental agreement executed by the defendant
A17	05.02.2013	On demand promissory note for Rs. 70,00,000/- executed by the defendant
A18	03.06.2014	Letter of sanction of renewal-cum-enhancement of OCC
A19	17.07.2014	Letter of renewal executed by the defendant
A20	17.07.2014	Letter of proprietorship executed by the defendant
A21	17.07.2014	Request for overdraft facility executed by the defendant
A22	17.07.2014	Supplemental agreement executed by the defendant
A23	17.07.2014	On demand promissory note for Rs. 13,00,000/- executed by the defendant
A24	17.07.2014	Letter of revival executed by the defendant
A25	19.02.2015	Letter of renewal executed by the defendant
A26	19.02.2015	Letter of proprietorship executed by the defendant
A27	19.02.2015	Request for overdraft facility executed by the defendant
A28	19.02.2015	Link letter in respect of enhancement executed by the defendant
A29	19.02.2015	Supplemental agreement executed by the defendant
A30	19.02.2015	On demand promissory note for Rs. 32,00,000/- executed by the defendant
A31	19.02.2015	Letter of revival executed by the defendant
A32	27.12.2016	Loan application submitted by the defendant
A33	02.03.2017	Loan sanction/ renewal letter
A34	02.03.2017	Letter of renewal executed by the defendant
A35	02.03.2017	Letter of proprietorship executed by the defendant
A36	02.03.2017	Link letter in respect of enhancement executed by the defendant

¶76

OA 1634/2022

¶77

¶78

A37	02.03.2017	Supplemental agreement executed by the defendant
A38	02.03.2017	On demand promissory note for Rs. 50,00,000/- executed by the defendant
A39	02.03.2017	Letter of revival executed by the defendant
A40	29.06.2018	Letter of revival executed by the defendant
A41	29.06.2018	Letter of revival executed by the defendant
A42	30.04.2019	Letter addressed by the applicant bank to the defendant
A43	15.05.2020	Loan sanction memorandum
A44	15.05.2020	Letter of renewal executed by the defendant
A45	15.05.2020	Letter of revival executed by the defendant
		II Vehicle loan of Rs. 21,00,000/-
A46	06.05.2019	Loan application submitted by the defendant
A47	06.05.2019	Loan sanction letter
A48	13.05.2019	Canmobile loan agreement executed by the defendant
A49	18.05.2019	Particulars of hypothecated vehicle, executed by the defendant
A50	--	Copy of the certificate of registration of hypothecated vehicle, executed by the defendant
A51	--	Copy of ‘B’ register extract of the hypothecated vehicle
A52	28.04.2022	Letter of revival executed by the defendant
		III GECL loan of Rs. 48,00,000/-
A53	--	Application submitted by the defendant
A54	03.11.2020	Application for loan submitted by the defendant
A55	09.11.2020	Memorandum of agreement executed by the defendant
A56	09.1.2020	On demand promissory note for Rs.48,00,000/- executed by the defendant

¶79

OA 1634/2022

¶80

¶81

A57	04.03.2017	Mortgage deed executed by the defendant, registered in the office of Sub-registrar, Mysore as document No. MYE-1-1954-2017-18 and stored in CD No. MYED 86, Book No.1
A58	14.09.2022	Supplemental mortgage deed executed by the defendant, registered in the office ofr Sub- registrar, mysore, as document NO. MYE-1-7891- 2022-23 and stored in CD NO. MYED1060, Book No.1
A59	22.11.2021	Notice issued by the applicant bank to the defendant
A60	15.03.2022	Notice issued by the applicant bank to the defendant
A61	--	Notice issued by the applicant bank to the defendant
A62	--	Statement of account in respect of cash credit loan account No. 0538271000003
A63	--	Statement of account in respect of vehicle loan account No. 0538603000204
A64	--	Statement of account in respect of guaranteed emergency credit line (GECL) loan account NO. 0538755000042

¶82

Witness Examined for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶83

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶84

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶85

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

Canara Bank v. M P Venkatesh Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M P Venkatesh Babu

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

Basil Co. versus Kerala Gramin Bank

Uco Bank versus Sh. Bachchan Kumar Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Bhagwant Singh

Indu Kumari Pandey versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S K. K. Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Mr. Praveen