Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sangeetha

DRT29 Aug 2025OA/1704/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for a recovery certificate against borrowers and a guarantor. The court deemed evidence uncontroverted and reduced the interest rate to 9% per annum simple interest pending realization from arrears or sale of secured property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 32,94,858/- plus 9% simple interest from filing date. Defendants jointly, severally, and personally liable; executable against schedule property and other assets.

Union Bank of India versus Sangeetha — Insurance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 29^th Day of August, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1704/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Union Bank of India (Earlier Andhra Bank), Garvebhavipalya Branch, 14^th Main, Adarsh Layout, Near Holy Family Church, Hongasandra, Garvebhavipalya, Bengaluru 560 068. Represented by its Principal Officer and Branch Manager, Vasummadhi Sundara Raghavan, W/o Sundara Raghavan, Aged about 40 years.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sangeetha M, W/o Murugananthan, Aged about 35 years. No. 11, 10^th Main, 10^th Cross, Near Sathyarayana Kalyana Mantappa, J.C. Nagar, Kurubarahalli, Mahalakshmipura Layout, Bengaluru 560 086

¶10

Also at

¶11

No. 2, Khata No. 140, Off Ring Road, Laggere Village,

¶12

OA 1704/2023

¶13

¶14

Yeshwanthapura Hoblie, Bengaluru.

¶15

Murugananthan M, S/o Maadu, Aged about 44 years, No. 11, 10^th Main, 10^th Cross, Near Sathyarayana Kalyana Mantappa, J.C. nagar, Kurubarhalli, Mahalakshipura Layout, Bengaluru 560 086. ...DEFENDANTS

¶16

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶17

Applicant : M.R. Rajini Defendants : Exparte

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

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 defendants for Rs. 32,94,858/- (Rupees Thirty Two lakh Ninety Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Eight Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant No.1 availed a term loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lakh Only). The defendant No.2 is the guarantor to the said term loan.

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above

¶22

OA 1704/2023

¶23

¶24

availed loans, the defendants executed the necessary loan documents

¶25

along with Composite agreement, general form of guarantee and memorandum of deposit of title deeds.

¶26

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 accounts as NPA.

¶27

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.

¶28

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 11.03.2024.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶32

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶33

OA 1704/2023

¶34

¶35

claim as against the defendants?

¶36

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶37

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶38

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application 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, creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶42

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶43

availed for Business purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view of the

¶44

OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 9.00% (simple).

¶45

OA 1704/2023

¶46

¶47

In the result, OA.No.1704/2023, stands allowed,

¶48

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

¶49

Rs. 32,94,858/- (Rupees Thirty Two lakh Ninety Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Eight Only) with further interest @9.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally and 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. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶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 order

¶55

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶56

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

¶57

OA 1704/2023

¶58

¶59

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶60

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

¶61

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶62

[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].

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

(T. RAJESH)

¶65

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶66

ANNEXURES

¶67

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶68

AW-1: Vasummadhi Sundara Raghavan W/o Sundara Raghavan, Branch Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶69

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶70

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	--	Applicants evidence
A2	--	List of documents
A3	24.04.2018	Loan application
A4	08.05.2018	Sanction letter
A5	14.05.2018	Composite agreement
A6	14.05.2018	General form of guarantee
A7	14.05.2018	Memorandum of deposit of title deeds
A8	03.04.2013	Sale deed
A9	15.05.2018	Encumbrance certificate
A10	01.03.2023	Legal Notice
A11	--	Postal receipts
A12	--	Returned postal cover
A13	--	Returned postal cover
A14	--	Returned postal cover

¶71

OA 1704/2023

¶72

¶73

A15 15.03.2023 Statement showing the balance outstanding in the loan A/c of the defendants

¶74

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

¶75

-Nil -

¶76

-Nil -

¶77

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Sangeetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sangeetha

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