Allowed

Canara Bank v. Vishalakshi

DRT18 Dec 2025OA/230/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Canara Bank for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The Bank claimed dues of Rs. 20,60,000 regarding a term loan. The Tribunal found the evidence un-rebutted and admissible. It permitted recovery of the principal plus simple interest at 10% p.a. from the filing date.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 20,60,000 plus simple interest at 10% p.a. from the date of filing of OA till realization along with costs.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE

¶2

Dated this 18^th Day of December, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH Hon’ble Presiding Officer

¶4

O.A.No.230 of 2024

¶5

Canara Bank, (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), HSR Layout Branch, No.1135, Ground Floor, 17^th Cross, 80 Feet Road, Sector-7, HSR Layout, Bangalore – 560 102.

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Smt.Vishalakshi, W/o.Sri Puttegowda, No.73/59, 2^nd Cross, Yellukunte Village, Bommanahalli, Bangalore – 560 068.

¶9

Also at No.16, 3^rd Cross, Bhanu Nursing Home Road, Bommanahalli, Bangalore – 560 068. … Defendant.

¶10

Counsel for Applicant : Sri Rohit R.Achar. Defendant : Exparte. …… ORDER

¶11

The Application is filed under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts

¶12

And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for a sum of Rs.20,60,000/- together with interest

¶13

¶14

@14.25% p.a. compounded monthly from the date of application till the date of realisation together with costs from the defendant and by sale of schedule mentioned hypothecated movables.

¶15

The Applicant contends that the defendant approached the applicant bank for Term Loan of Rs.19,00,000/- for her bakery business needs and availed the same on 27.11.2020 by execution of necessary loan documents including On Demand Pro Note and Deed of Hypothecation, hypothecating the movables described in the schedule to the OA.

¶16

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendant obliging herself to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶17

The Applicant further contends that after availing the aforesaid facility, the defendant failed to regularize the said loan. Hence the applicant bank issued demand notice and legal Notice to the defendant on 17.08.2022 and 14.03.2023 respectively calling upon the defendant to repay the dues. Despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendant failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant to make the defendant pay back the amount failed, forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶18

¶19

Summons was taken out and as the defendant failed to enter appearance, she was set exparte on 19.12.2024.

¶20

The Applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A9, got the same marked in evidence.

¶21

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶22

i) Whether the applicant succeeded in proving the OA claim as

¶23

against the Defendant?

¶24

ii)If so, to what extent?

¶25

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶26

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the OA claim. Hence the Applicant is found to be entitled for the OA claim. The OA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶27

Since the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest with default interest and that the facilities are availed in respect of Term Loan the pendent lite and future interest is awarded at simple rate that too at reduced rate of 10% p.a. (simple).

¶28

In view of the above

¶29

i) OA No.230 of 2024 stands allowed.

¶30

¶31

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.20,60,000/(Rupees Twenty Lakhs Sixty Thousands only) together with interest @10% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization together with costs from the defendant and her assets including the schedule mentioned movable properties are liable to be proceeded against for realization of dues after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA.

¶32

iii) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the Recovery Officer to enable recovery of the dues as per the above terms.

¶33

iv) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

¶34

v) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶35

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶36

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18^th day of December, 2025)

¶37

Sd./-

¶38

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

¶40

Applicant Witness:

¶41

AW1 –Mr.Yogesh, Senior Manager, Applicant Bank.

¶42

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶43

Ext.A1 - Loan Application dt.04.11.2020. Ext.A2 - On Demand Pro Note dt.27.11.2020. Ext.A3 - Deed of Hypothecation dt.27.11.2020. Ext.A4 - Letter of Undertaking dt.27.11.2020. Ext.A5 - Particulars of Equipment dt.27.11.2020. Ext.A6 - Letter of Revival dt.22.06.2022. Ext.A7 - Demand Notice dt.17.08.2022. Ext.A8 - Legal Notice dt.14.03.2023. Ext.A9 - Account Extract.

¶44

Witness Examined for the Defendant:

¶45

NIL

¶46

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant :

¶47

NIL

¶48

Sd./-

¶49

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Vishalakshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Vishalakshi

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

Paramjeet Singh versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Md Anwar Hussain And Ors. Propietor of Ms Madina Cloth Store versus West Bengal Gramin Bank

Suresh Kumar versus Canara Bank

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Deepak Kumar

Jarina Bibi And Ors. Pro of Ms Bhangari Shop versus Indian Bank

Federal Bank versus M/s Ave Maria Industries