Allowed

Canara Bank v. gurudev motors

DRT22 Aug 2025OA/1762/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Canara Bank seeking a recovery certificate of Rs. 34,45,240 with interest against three defendants who failed to appear. The court noted the evidence was uncontroverted and sanctioned the recovery certificate for execution.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate for Rs. 34,45,240 with interest is to be drawn and transferred to Recovery for execution.

Canara Bank versus gurudev motors — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 22^ND Day of August, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1762/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Branch Office at Madhugiri Branch, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumakuru District

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

M/s Gurudev Motors At Mahatma Gandhi Layout, GBN Road, Madhugiri-572132

¶10

Sri. Manjunatha. D S/o. Dasharathappa R/at Dasarahalli Post, Dasarahalli, Koratagere Tumakuru District- 572129

¶11

Sri. Hanumantharaya D.H. S/o. Huliyappa, R/at Dasarahalli Post, Dasarahalli, Koratagere Tumakuru District- 572129 ...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Mohamed Afroze Ahamed Defendants : Exparte

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been

¶16

¶17

OA 1762-2023

¶18

filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate Rs.34,45,240/- (Rupees thirty four lakh forty five thousand two hundred and forty only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant No.1 is a Proprietorship Concern. The Defendants availed the following credit facilities from the applicant bank:-

¶20

I. MSME Loan of a sum of Rs.9,40,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Forty Thousand Only),

¶21

II. Canara Vehicle loan limit of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Only),

¶22

III. Working Capital Loan limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only),

¶23

IV. Working Capital Loan limit of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)

¶24

V. GECL Loan of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) and

¶25

VI. ODCC Loan limit of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only).

¶26

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with sanction memorandum, deed of

¶27

¶28

OA 1762-2023

¶29

hypothecation, guarantee agreements and letters of Revival.

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 09.08.2024.

¶33

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-55 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶34

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.

¶35

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶36

OA 1762-2023

¶37

¶38

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶39

OA claim as against the defendants?

¶40

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶41

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶42

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶46

OA 1762-2023

¶47

¶48

are availed by defendants for Business purpose, in view of the

¶49

rate of interest as claimed need not be reduced. However, as

¶50

the OA Claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed

¶51

rate and also by applying default interest, the prayer for monthly rest and future penal interest are declined.

¶52

In the result, OA.No.1762/2023, stands allowed,

¶53

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶54

sum of Rs.34,45,240/- (Rupees thirty four lakh forty five

¶55

thousand two hundred forty only) consisting of:-

¶56

a) Rs.5,28,756/- (Rupees five lakh twenty eight thousand

¶57

seven hundred fifty six Only) with further interest @10.20% p.a. (Simple),

¶58

b) Rs.4,76,314/-(Rupees four lakh seventy six thousand

¶59

three hundred fourteen Only) with further interest @ 8.95 % p.a. (Simple),

¶60

c) Rs.10,69,086/- (Rupees Ten lakh sixty nine thousand and eighty six Only) with further interest @11.35% p.a. (Simple),

¶61

d) Rs.71,183/- (Rupees seventy one thousand one hundred

¶62

OA 1762-2023

¶63

¶64

eighty three Only) with further interest @8.05% p.a. (Simple),

¶65

e) Rs.2,21,653/- (Rupees two lakh twenty one thousand six

¶66

hundred fifty three only) with further interest @9.25% p.a.

¶67

(Simple) and

¶68

f) Rs.10,78,248/- (Rupees ten lakh seventy eighty thousand two hundred forty eight only)

¶69

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

¶70

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 proceedings against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶71

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

¶72

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶73

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

¶74

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

¶75

OA 1762-2023

¶76

¶77

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶78

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

¶79

in terms of this final order.

¶80

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

¶81

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

¶82

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶83

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 22^ND day of August, 2025].

¶84

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶85

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶86

ANNEXURES

¶87

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶88

AW-1: Manjunath R Nayak, Branch Manager, of the Applicant Bank.

¶89

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶90

The documents are appended in this order.

¶91

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

¶92

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. gurudev motors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. gurudev motors

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

Leelamma C S versus Federal Bank

Ajitha Reji versus Federal Bank

State Bank of India versus M/S Tirupati Associates, a Proprietary Concern Acting through Its Proprietor Shri Namdeo S/O Vishwanath Kadu

Smt Leelavathi versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Bank of India versus Amruth Hardware and Paints

Canara Bank versus Mahadevu