Allowed

Canara Bank v. Bhaskar Murlidhar

DRT19 Sept 2025OA/1732/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, the bank sought a Recovery Certificate for defaulted loan accounts claimed as NPA. The defendant appeared ex-parte. The Tribunal found the evidence uncontroverted and sufficient, allowing the OA with reduced interest at 9% p.a. to permit recovery from properties and personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate allowed for Rs. 3,32,84,752 with further interest at 9% p.a. (simple) from filing date till realization, recoverable from schedule properties and defendant's personal assets.

Canara Bank versus Bhaskar Murlidhar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 19^th Day of September, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1732/2024

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank South End Road Branch, No.19 South End Road, Bengaluru- 560004

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. Bhaskar Muralidhar S/o Muralidhar Rao Proprietor of M/s VBD Capital, R/at: 4^th floor, 50, C S Mansion, Church Street, Shantalanagar, Bangalore-560001

¶9

Also R/at: Flat No.1003, Tower 1, Tata Promont, Hosakerehalli, BSK 3^rd Stage, Bengaluru-560085

¶10

...DEFENDANT

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : C Vinaya Swamy Defendants : Exparte

OA 1732-2024

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 for Rs.3,32,84,752/- (Rupees three crore thirty two lakh eighty four thousand seven hundred fifty two only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶17

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant availed the following credit facilities from the applicant bank:-

¶18

I. OD Loan of a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees one crore fifty lakh Only), which was later enhanced,

¶19

II. Vehicle loan limit of Rs.89,00,000/- (Rupees eighty nine lakh Only), and

¶20

III. GECL Loan limit of Rs.48,00,000/- (Rupees forty eight Lakh Only).

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with registered memorandum, sanction letter and guarantee covering letter in favor of the applicant bank.

¶22

It is further contended that, the defendant despite availing

¶23

¶24

OA 1732-2024

¶25

the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, failed in complying with the same, resulting in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶26

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.

¶27

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 28.01.2025.

¶28

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-1 to A-27 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶29

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.

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶31

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶32

OA 1732-2024

¶33

¶34

OA claim as against the defendant?

¶35

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶36

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶37

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 hypothecation and mortgage as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim as the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶38

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence

¶39

this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶40

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶41

OA 1732-2024

¶42

¶43

are availed by defendant for OD purpose and also that OA claim

¶44

is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal, in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest @9% p.a.(Simple).

¶45

In the result, OA.No.1732/2024, stands allowed,

¶46

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶47

sum of Rs.3,32,84,752/- (Rupees three crore thirty two lakh

¶48

eighty four thousand seven hundred fifty two only) with further interest @9% p.a. (Simple),

¶49

from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendant

¶50

personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same

¶51

to be recovered by proceedings against the schedule property.

¶52

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

¶53

(ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendant personally and his other assets are liable to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶54

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶55

OA 1732-2024

¶56

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶60

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

¶61

in terms of this final order.

¶62

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

¶63

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

¶64

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶65

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by

¶66

me in the Open Court, this the 19^th day of September, 2025].

¶67

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶68

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶69

ANNEXURES

¶70

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶71

AW-1: Palanivel Rajan, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶72

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶73

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	29.07.2020	Registered Memorandum of deposit of title deeds
A2	30.07.2020	Letter of Proprietorship
A3	30.07.2020	Sanction letter
A4	30.07.2020	Request for overdraft facilities
A5	30.07.2020	Pronote

¶74

OA 1732-2024

¶75

¶76

A6	30.07.2020	Common Hypothecation agreement
A7	27.11.2021	Application form for renewal of the said limit
A8	29.11.2021	Sanction for renewal of the said limit
A9	29.06.2021	Sanction for enhancement of limit
A10	07.06.2022	Supplemental common hypothecation agreement
A11	07.06.2022	Letter of renewal
A12	07.06.2022	Letter of renewal
A13	29.07.2022	Registered supplemental memorandum of deposit of title deeds
A14	20.08.2020	Sanction Memorandum
A15	21.08.2020	Canara Vehicle loan agreement
A16 & A17	21.08.2020	Guarantee covering letter along with guarantee agreement by defendant
A18	16.03.2016	Letter evidencing execution of documents
A19	27.10.2021	Process note format for sanction of GECL loan by applicant bank
A20	27.10.2021	Pronote by defendant
A21	06.11.2021	Agreement cum deed of hypothecation by de fendant
A22 to A24	21.05.2024	Legal Notice and Postal Receipt
A25 to A27		Statement of Accounts

¶77

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

¶78

-Nil -

¶79

-Nil -

¶80

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

Canara Bank v. Bhaskar Murlidhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Bhaskar Murlidhar

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

Abbas Ca versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sachin Kumar Kaushal

Canara Bank versus M/S Avtar Bag Factory

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Hardik

Ms Habib Agro Industries Rep by Its Partners and Legal Heir of Late Sri Habib Khan and Others versus the Authorised Officer Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

Ms Habib Agro Industries Rep by Its Industries Rep by Its Partner and Legal Heirs of Late Sri Habib Khan and Others versus the Authorised Officer Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.