Allowed

Canara Bank v. Shasya Life Science

DRT31 Dec 2025OA/164/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Canara Bank to obtain a Recovery Certificate against a proprietor defendant. The court accepted the evidence of credit facilities availed and defaults as uncontroverted, granting principal recovery with simple interest at 8.00%. Prorated

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate drawn for aggregate sum of Rs.31,18,000/- with further interest @ 8.00% p.a. (simple) until realization, executable against defendant's personal and other assets.

Canara Bank versus Shasya Life Science — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 31^st Day of December, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA. No.164/2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) HSR Layout Branch, No.1135, Ground Floor, 17^th Cross, 80 Feet road, Sector – 7, HSR Layout, Bangalore - 560102 … APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

M/s. Shasya Life Sciences Rep. by its Proprietor, Sri. R. Karunakar Goud, S/o. Sri. Goud, Aged about 47 years, No.4, 4^th Cross, KCA Layout, Kothanur Main Road, J.P. Nagar 8^th Phase, Bangalore - 560062

¶10

...DEFENDANT

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for: Applicant : Sri. Ramanand Achar Defendant : Exparte

¶12

:FINAL ORDER:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

OA. No.164/2024

¶16

¶17

seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendant for Rs.31,18,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakh Eighteen Thousand only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant availed the Overdraft facility of Rs.8,00,000/- on 27.11.2017 for his drugs pharma distribution business needs; Working Capital Demand loan (WCDL) of Rs.4,00,000/- on 06.02.2020 for his business needs; Guaranteed Emergency Credit Line (GECL) facility of Rs.2,82,000/on 09.06.2020 and Covid Funded Interest Term loan (CFITL) of Rs.69,192/- on 03.09.2020.

¶19

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

¶20

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 account as NPA.

¶21

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

¶22

OA. No.164/2024

¶23

¶24

for the amount due in the account.

¶25

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 04.04.2025.

¶26

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 A1 to A31 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: i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendant? ii) What order are to be passed?

¶29

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶30

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

¶31

OA. No.164/2024

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

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 8.00% (simple).

¶36

In the result, OA.No.164/2024 stands allowed,

¶37

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.31,18,000/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakh Eighteen Thousand only) with further interest of 8.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from defendant, 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 the defendant personally and his other assets, including the

¶38

OA. No.164/2024

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant personally and his other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶42

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶43

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

¶44

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶45

v) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of with this Final Order.

¶46

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶47

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

¶48

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 31^st Day of December 2025].

¶49

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA. No.164/2024

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶54

AW-1: Sabyasachi Sharma, Manager of the applicant bank.

¶55

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶56

Annexure	Particulars
A1	Loan Application Dated 27.11.2017
A2	Request for OD dated 27.11.2017
A3	On Demand Pro Note dated 27.11.2017
A4	Cash Credit Agreement dated 27.11.2017
A5	Letter of Undertaking dated 27.11.2017
A6	Letter of Proprietorship dated 27.11.2017
A7	Sanction memorandum dated 01.12.2018
A8	Request for OD dated 01.12.2018
A9	On Demand Pro note dated 01.12.2018
A10	Supplemental agreement dated 01.12.2018
A11	Letter of Undertaking dated 01.12.2018
A12	Loan application dated 06.02.2020
A13	Sanction memorandum dated 06.02.2020
A14	On Demand Pro Note dated 06.02.2020
A15	Supplemental Agreement dated 06.02.2020
A16	Letter of Undertaking dated 06.02.2020
A17	Offer letter dated 09.06.2020
A18	Loan application dated 09.06.2020
A19	Sanction memorandum dated 09.06.2020
A20	Agreement cum deed of hypothecation dated 09.06.2020

¶57

OA. No.164/2024

¶58

¶59

A21	Letter of Undertaking dated 09.06.2020
A22	Letter of Renewal dated 01.12.2018
A23	Letter of Revival dated 01.12.2018
A24	Letter of Renewal dated 20.02.2020
A25	Letter of Revival dated 30.05.2022
A26	Letter of Revival dated 30.05.2022
A27	Legal notice dated 16.04.2023
A28	Account Extract (OD)
A29	Account Extract (WCDL)
A30	Account Extract (GECL)
31	Account Extract (CFITL)

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Shasya Life Science

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Shasya Life Science

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

Idbi Bank versus Sri.Ramesh. B. Gowda

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Ramraj Grewal

Canara Bank versus Mr. Bhanu Tiwari

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Sri.Bheemaraya. N. Bhosale

Mrs Praveena Pattanashetti versus Union Bank of India

Mr Mohammad Ali Saifuddin Navalgund versus Idbi Bank