Allowed

Canara Bank v. E Sendhil

DRT25 Sept 2025OA/1707/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's Original Application for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. Finding the defendants in default and proceeding ex parte, the court sanctioned the principal claim but reduced the interest rate to 11.00% per annum simple interest pending realization.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 2,27,30,490/- with interest @ 11.00% p.a. (simple) from filing date, to be recovered from defendants jointly, severally and personally.

Canara Bank versus E Sendhil — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 25^th Day of August, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1707/2023

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank, Girinagar branch No.405, J P road, Girinagar 1^st phase Bengaluru – 560 085

¶6

Represented by: Its senior manager

¶7

Sri. Sanjay Shrotriya …APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. E Sendhil S/o. late G Elumalai Proprietor of M/s. PSB Distributors Aged about 39 years, At: 19/1 Sadashiva reddy compound, Behind Baldwin school, R M nagar, Banaswadi main road, Bangalore – 560 043

¶10

Also R/at: No. 10, O 2^nd street, Shivan chetty garden, Near Shree complex, Bangalore north, Bangalore – 560 042

¶11

Sri. Bhaskara M S/o Sri Muralidhar rao Aged about 39 years, R/at: No. 1534, 39^th cross, Mamata Nurshing home,

¶12

OA 1707/2023

¶13

¶14

4^th T block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru south, Bengaluru – 560 041 ...DEFENDANTS

¶15

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶16

Applicant : C Vinay swamy Defendant : Ex parte

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

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. 2,27,30,490/- (Rupees Two Crores Twenty Seven Lakhs Thirty Thousand Four Hundred And Ninety Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that, the 1^st defendant is the proprietor of M/S PSB Distributors who availed a OCC limit loan of Rs. 1,86,00,000/- (Rupees One Crores Eighty Six Lakhs only) for the purpose of his business needs.

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed the necessary loan documents and Memorandum of deposit of title deeds, common Hypothecation Agreement, Guarantee Agreement and Sanction Memorandum.

¶21

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

¶22

OA 1707/2023

¶23

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 06.02.2025

¶27

The applicant let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-8 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 the proof affidavit.

¶29

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶30

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

¶31

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶32

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶33

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained ex parte. The evidence tendered

¶34

by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The

¶35

OA 1707/2023

¶36

¶37

evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are

¶38

sufficient to prove the availment of the credit facilities as stated in the OA, creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶42

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

¶43

the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 11.00% (simple).

¶44

In the result, OA.No.1707 /2023, stands allowed,

¶45

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

¶46

Rs. 2,27,30,490/- (Rupees Two Crores Twenty Seven Lakhs Thirty Thousand Four Hundred And Ninety Only)with further interest @ 11.00 % p.a.(simple), from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 jointly, severally & personally after

¶47

giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the

¶48

OA 1707/2023

¶49

¶50

pendency of the OA and allowed to recovered by proceeding against

¶51

the schedule property are liable for balance amounts due under the

¶52

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

¶53

ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient to clean of the

¶54

liability the defendants, penalty and their other assets are to be proceed apart for the balance amount.

¶55

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶56

which 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

¶58

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶59

v) Interim application pending, if any, are disposed of with this Final Order.

¶60

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶61

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

¶62

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 25^th Day of August, 2025].

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA 1707/2023

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶69

AW-1: Ranjan Kumar, S/o Kumar Yogendra, worked as Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶70

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶71

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	20.03.2020	Application Form
A2	07.05.2020	Sanction Memorandum
A3	08.05.2020	Memorandum Of Deposit Of Title Deeds
A4	12.05.2020	Common Hypothecation Agreement
A5 & A6	26.10.2021	Sanction Memorandum For Renewal
A8	-------	Statement Of Accounts

¶72

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

¶73

-Nil -

¶74

-Nil -

¶75

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. E Sendhil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. E Sendhil

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 versus Sukumar Mohan

State Bank of India versus Rahul

Canara Bank versus Sgr Infratech Solution

Canara Bank versus Santhosh Kumar H M

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) versus Bairaiah Since Dead by His Lrs and Others

Canara Bank versus Sri. S C Ravikumar Prop of Dodmane Poultry Farm