Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sri/ Maruti Vaiju Kodalkar

DRT28 Apr 2025OA/232/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an unopposed application for recovery of dues arising from a defaulted vehicle loan, the Tribunal allowed the application. The court directed the issuance of a recovery certificate for the principal amount plus reduced simple interest at 12% p.a. from the filing date.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate directed for aggregate sum of Rs.40,80,308/- with further interest at 12% p.a. (simple) from date of filing till realization.

Union Bank of India versus Sri/ Maruti Vaiju… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 28^th Day of April, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.232/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Union Bank of India Yellur Branch, H. No.286, Kalameshwar Galli, Yellur 5900 005, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka Through its Branch Manager Smt. Komal Ashok Jagdale … APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Mr. Maruti Vaiju Kodalkar S/o. Vaiju Kodalkar Having address at: Plot No.46, Vidyagiri, Nehru Nagar, Belgaum590 010

¶9

Mr. Gajanan Hanumath Sambhajiche S/o. Hanumanth Sambhajiche Having address at: House No. 1357/A, 1st Cross Nehru Nagar, Belagavi - 590 010 ..DEFENDANTS

¶10

Counsel on record/appeared for: Applicant : M/s. V S Associates Defendants : Exparte

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

The present Original Application in short OA has been filed

¶13

under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for

¶14

2 OA/232/2022

¶15

seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendant for Rs.40,80,308/- with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶16

It is the case of the applicant that, as the defendant No.1 is the borrower and the defendant No.2 as a guarantor availed a loan of Rs.48.00 lakhs for purchase of SML ISUZU Four wheeler vehicle for transportation purpose. It is also the case of the applicant that defendants have undertaken to repay the liability, subject to annual review or on Demand to pay with interest for the value received and further to pay the interest at such rate as revised by the bank from time to time.

¶17

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed the amount, the defendants have executed necessary loan documents.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

3 OA/232/2022

¶21

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 12.03.2024.

¶22

The applicant let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-3 to A13 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶24

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants?

¶25

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶26

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶27

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶28

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

¶29

4 OA/232/2022

¶30

admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of credit facility as stated in the OA, creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶31

Hence in view of the above finding which cover both the

¶32

issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶33

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility

¶34

was availed and also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest to simple.

¶35

In the result, OA.No.232/2022 stands allowed,

¶36

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum

¶37

of Rs.40,80,308/- (Rupees Forty Lakh Eighty Thousand Three Hundred and Eight only) with further interest of 12.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the

¶38

5 OA/232/2022

¶39

pendency of the OA.

¶40

ii) In the event of failure of the defendants to pay the

¶41

aforesaid amount, the bank is at liberty to proceed against the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their other assets

¶42

are liable for all such amounts due under the loan account.

¶43

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶47

v) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of with this Final Order.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶51

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 28^th Day of April 2025].

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶54

6 OA/232/2022

¶55

ANNEXURES

¶56

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶57

AW-1: Sri. Abhijeet Akaram Saymote, Senior Manager of the applicant bank.

¶58

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶59

Annexure	Particulars
A1	Applicant Evidence
A2	List of Documents
A3	Loan application dated 04.05.2016 Along with sanction letter dated 19.05.2016
A4	Agreement for hypothecation of vehicles dated 19.05.2016
A5	Agreement for term loan dated 19.05.2016
A6	Letter of undertaking/Declaration dated 19.05.2016
A7	Letter of undertaking and declaration dated 19.05.2016 Indemnifying the applicant bank for anyloss suffered bythe applicant
A8	Guarantee agreement dated 19.05.2016
A9	Demandpromissorynote dated 30.04.2019
A10	Loan application dated 24.09.2019 issued b defendant for debt restructuring letter by the applicants Retail loan Centre Belagavi
A11	Letter dated 07.04.2021 Issued by the applicant bank intimating irregular state of loan account
A12	Notice dated 06.12.2021 issued by the applicant bank sent registered A/D by Demanding repayment of outstanding dues with father interest.
A13	True Extract of Statement of Accounts pertainingto the Defendants' Loan accounts

¶60

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Sri/ Maruti Vaiju Kodalkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sri/ Maruti Vaiju Kodalkar

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

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Komal Arora

State Bank of India versus Sh. Ajay Kumar Tyagi

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Umaxe Projects

Jacy Fazal versus Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Sri Nagendra Jha versus Central Bank of India

Ashish Sharma versus Uco Bank