Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Dyavaiah

DRT13 Oct 2025OA/1889/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the application for a recovery certificate under the RDB Act. The applicant bank proved an outstanding loan amount against borrowers who did not appear. The Tribunal granted recovery of principal plus interest at 7% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 26,48,194/- plus 7% per annum simple interest; respondents jointly, severally and personally liable to proceed against schedule properties.

Union Bank of India versus Dyavaiah — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 13^th Day of October, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1889/2023

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Union Bank of India, Channapatna Branch, No.2191/4-10, B. M. Road, Kuvempunagar, Channapatna -562160, Ramanagara Dist., Rep. by its Principal Officer and Senior Manager

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri.Dyavaiah, S/o. Late Ninegowda, Govindahalli Village, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara Dist. -562160.

¶9

Sri. Prasanna Kumar G. D., S/o. Dyavaiah, Govindahalli Village, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara Dist. -562160.

¶10

...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Ld. Counsels on record / appeared :-

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M. R. Rajini Defendants : Exparte

OA 1889/2023

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. 26,48,194/(Rupees twenty-six lakh forty-eight thousand one hundred ninety-four only) with further interest thereon and cost from the Defendants.

¶17

It is the case of the Applicant that Defendants had availed

¶18

an Agricultural Term Loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) for the purpose of Dairy Farming.

¶19

It is also the case of the Applicant that, in view of the above loan, the Defendants executed necessary loan documents in favour of the Applicant bank to secure the loan and also had created mortgage and hypothecation over the schedule properties.

¶20

It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendants, despite availing the credit facility, after agreeing with the Terms and Conditions of the loan, failed in complying with the same, resulting in defaults and consequentially turning the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

¶21

In the above circumstances, the Applicant approached this

¶22

OA 1889/2023

¶23

¶24

Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate

¶25

for the amount due in the account.

¶26

Despite issuance of summons, there was no appearance on behalf of the Defendants. Hence, they were called absent and set ex parte on 23.07.2024.

¶27

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 A20, 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 succeeded in proving the OA

¶31

claim as against the Defendants?

¶32

ii) If so, to what extent?

¶33

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶34

The case put forth by the Applicant in the Application

¶35

remains unrebutted as Defendants remained exparte. The

¶36

OA 1889/2023

¶37

¶38

evidence tendered by the Applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidence put forth by the Applicant is found admissible and are sufficient to prove the averments made in the OA, and the defaults committed by the Defendants in repaying the loan amount due. The liability of the Defendants to the loan 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 above findings this Tribunal comes

¶40

to the conclusion that the OA is liable to be allowed.

¶41

Taking into consideration the fact that the loan is availed

¶42

agricultural term loan for commercial purpose and also the fact that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed

¶43

rate, pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 7.00% (simple). The prayer for interest with monthly rests and for penal interest for the future period is hereby declined.

¶44

In the result, OA.No.1889/2023, is allowed,

¶45

i) The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum

¶46

of Rs. 26,48,194/- (Rupees twenty six lakh forty eight thousand

¶47

one hundred ninety four only) with pendente lite and future

¶48

OA 1889/2023

¶49

¶50

interest of 7.00% p.a. (simple), from the date of filing of the OA till the realization, from the respective Defendants jointly, severally and personally after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA if any and allow the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule properties. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶51

ii) Defendants jointly, severally, personally and their

¶52

assets are liable to be proceeded against for the shortfall if any

¶53

to recover the balance amount due.

¶54

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶55

for which Applicant to file cost memo within seven days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶56

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

¶57

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶58

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

¶59

in terms of this final order.

¶60

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶61

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

¶62

OA 1889/2023

¶63

¶64

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶65

(Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13^th day of October, 2025)

¶66

Sd/(T. RAJESH)

¶67

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶68

ANNEXURES

¶69

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶70

AW-1: Sr. Sharon C. Nelson, Branch Manager of Applicant Bank.

¶71

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶72

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	--	Evidence affidavit
A2	--	List of Documents
A3	13.06.2013	Loan Application
A4	20.06.2014	Sanction Letter
A5	20.06.2014	Demand Promissory Note
A6	20.06.2014	Take Delivery Letter to DPN
A7	20.06.2014	Agreement for term loan
A8	20.06.2014	Common Deed of Hypothecation
A9	27.04.2017	Acknowledgement of Debt
A10	27.04.2017	Demand Promissory Note
A11	27.04.2017	Take Delivery Letter to DPN
A12	20.02.2020	Demand promissory note
A13	27.04.2017	Take Delivery Letter to DPN
A14	17.06.2014	Deed of Simple mortgage
A15	--	RTC for Sy. No. 34/3 for the period 2013-14
A16	--	RTC for Sy. No. 4/1A1 for the period 2013-14
A17	--	RTC for Sy. No. 4/1B for the period 2013-14

¶73

OA 1889/2023

¶74

¶75

A18	03.11.2015	Encumbrance certificate for the period
		17.06.2014 to 01.11.2015
A19	19.06.2023	Legal Notice
A20	30.06.2023	Certified account statement

¶76

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

¶77

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Dyavaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Dyavaiah

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

State Bank of India versus M/S Teotia Automobile Company

Santosh Jain versus Punjab National Bank

Uco Bank versus Sh Lalji Yadav

Bank of India versus Shree Pawan Housiery

Canara Bank versus Srn Industries

Icici Bank Limited versus Gundappa Upaleppa