Allowed

Union Bank of India v. M C Steel Traders

DRT30 Oct 2025OA/2165/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed the applicant's Original Application for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The court found the defendants' default in repayment as uncontroverted evidence, permitting recovery of the principal amount and interest.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.30,65,583.87 with further interest @ 10% p.a. (Simple) from the date of filing till realization, recoverable from defendants jointly severally and personally, a

Union Bank of India versus M C Steel Traders — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 30^th Day of October, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.2165/2024

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Union Bank of India Branch office at: SC Road Branch, #71/1, 1^st floor, Brigade Plaza, Subedar Chetram Road, Near Anand Rao Circle, Bengaluru- 560001

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

M/s MC Steel Traders Represented by its Proprietor Sri. Charles M, No.28, Immadihalli Main Road, Whitefield, Bengaluru-560066

¶9

And Also at: No.1, yellappa Building, Viveknagar, 9^th Cross, Bengaluru-560047

¶10

And Also at: No.07, 11^th Block, EWS Quarters, Viveknagar, Bengaluru-560047

¶11

And Also at: No.116, Sri. Padmavathi Paradise, Ballur Village, Attibele Hobli,

¶12

¶13

OA 2165-2024

¶14

Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru-562106

¶15

Sri. Charles S/o Sri. Mohan Proprietor of M/s MC Steel Traders, No.28, Immadihalli Main Road, Whitefield, Bengaluru- 560066

¶16

...DEFENDANTS

¶17

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶18

Applicant : Prabhu Rao CB Defendants : Exparte

¶19

FINAL ORDER

¶20

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.30,65,583.87 (Rupees thirty lakhs sixty five thousand five hundred eighty three and eighty seven paise only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶21

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant No.1 is a Proprietary concern with defendant No.2 as its Proprietor availed the Overdraft General credit facilities of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakh only) from the applicant bank.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

OA 2165-2024

¶25

amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with Memorandum of sanction, demand promissory, hypothecation deed and letter of undertaking in favor of the applicant bank.

¶26

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.

¶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 26.03.2025.

¶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-1 to A-8 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶30

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered

¶31

OA 2165-2024

¶32

¶33

the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and the proof affidavit.

¶34

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶35

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA 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 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.

¶39

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this

¶40

OA 2165-2024

¶41

¶42

Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence

¶43

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

¶44

12. Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶45

are availed by defendants for agricultural purpose and also that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate,

¶46

this Tribunal, in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest @10% p.a.(Simple).

¶47

In the result, OA.No.2165/2024, stands allowed,

¶48

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶49

sum of Rs.30,65,583.87 (Rupees thirty lakh sixty five thousand five hundred eighty three and eighty seven paisa only) with further interest @10% p.a. (Simple),

¶50

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 proceedings against

¶51

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

¶52

OA 2165-2024

¶53

¶54

(ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendants

¶55

jointly severally and personally and his other assets are liable to

¶56

be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶57

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶58

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

¶59

receipt of the order.

¶60

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

¶61

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶62

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

¶63

in terms of this final order.

¶64

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

¶65

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

¶66

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶67

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 30^th day of October, 2025].

¶68

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA 2165-2024

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶73

AW-1: Cyril Monterio, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶74

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶75

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1		Loan Application
A2	10.03.2023	Memorandum of sanction
A3	09.03.2023	Demand Promissory
A4	09.03.2023	Composite hypothecation
A5	09.03.2023	Simple Agreement
A6	09.03.2023	Letter of continuity
A7	09.03.2023	Letter of undertaking
A8		Statement of account bearing loan account No.127024010000016 along with certificate as per Banker’s Book of Evidence Act.

¶76

Witness Examined for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶77

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶78

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. M C Steel Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. M C Steel Traders

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Kamaljit Singh

Ms General Trading Company versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Piara Singh

Ms R S Belvedere versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Ms Parwati Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. and others versus Bank of Baroda

Standard Chartered Bank versus M/s Nanma Marketing Pvt. Ltd.