Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Sri. Mohannad Mukthar Mulla

DRT25 Nov 2025OA/256/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application for issuance of a Recovery Certificate of Rs.20,41,177 with reduced interest at 10% simple p.a., as defendants appeared ex parte and evidence was uncontroverted.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.20,41,177 with 10% simple annual interest from filing date until realization, recoverable jointly, severally, and personally.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Sri. Mohannad Mukthar Mulla — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 25^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.256/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Karnataka Grameena Bank Branch office at Super Market, Gulbarga-585102, Karnataka, Rep. by Asst. Manager & Principal Officer in-charge Sri. Gaurav Kumar

¶7

… APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Mr. Mohammad Mukthar Mulla Proprietor: M/s. M M Agencies S/o. Mr. Abdul Zabar Mulla H.No.4-629/2, Santraswadi Darga Road, Gulbarga – 585102

¶10

Mr. Taugeeq Ahmad S/o. Mr. Mahemood Patel H.No.4-840, Hafth Gumbaz, Maktampura, Gulbarga – 585101

¶11

Mrs. Shahila Fazilage W/o. Mr. Taufeeq Ahmad H.No.4-840, Hafth Gumbaz, Maktampura, Gulbarga - 585101 ...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Mr. T P Muthanna Defendants : Exparte

OA. No.256/2022

:FINAL ORDER:

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.20,41,177/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Forty One Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Seven only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed OCC limit of Rs.3,00,000/- 08.06.2006 to meet working capital requirements in cement business.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate

¶22

OA. No.256/2022

¶23

¶24

for the amount due in the account.

¶25

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 28.08.2024.

¶26

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed their Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A3 to A19 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶30

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶31

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 facility

¶32

OA. No.256/2022

¶33

¶34

as stated in the OA, as to the execution of loan documents as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶35

Hence in view of the above finding which cover both the issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶36

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was availed for business purpose and also that 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 of 10.00% (simple).

¶37

In the result, OA.No.256/2022 stands allowed,

¶38

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.20,41,177/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Forty One Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Seven only) with further interest of 10.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from defendants, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the defendants jointly,

¶39

OA. No.256/2022

¶40

¶41

severally and personally and their other assets of the defendants, including the schedule properties are liable for all such amounts due under the loan account. The schedule properties to the OA be the schedule properties to the Recovery Certificate.

¶42

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶43

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶44

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

¶45

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶46

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

¶47

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.

¶48

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 25^th Day of November 2025].

¶49

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA. No.256/2022

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶54

AW-1: G R Venkatesh, Senior Manager of the applicant bank.

¶55

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶56

Annexure	Particulars
A3	Copy of application for Trade Advances dated 08.06.2006
A4	Copy of sanction letter for Rs.3,00,000/- acknowledged by defendant Nos.1,2 & 3 dated 08.06.2006
A5	Copy Of Demand Promissory Note and DPN Delivery Letter Executed by Defendant Nos.1,2 & 3 Dated 08.06.2006
A6	Copy of the loan agreement for Rs.3,00,000/- executed by the defendant No.1 dated 08.06.2006
A7	Copy of the Guarantee Agreement executed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 dated 08.06.2006
A8	Copy of the letter evidencing deposit of title deeds executed by the defendant No.2 dated 11.06.2006
A9	Copy of the letter evidencing deposit of Title Deeds executed by the defendant No.3 dated 11.06.2006
A10	Copy of Balance Confirmation letter executed by the defendant No.1 dated 30.05.2009
A11	Copy of the Revival Letter-II executed by the defendant No.1 dated 30.05.2009
A12	Copy of the Revival Letter-I executed by the defendant Nos.2 and 3 dated 30.05.2009

¶57

OA. No.256/2022

¶58

A13	Copy of the Revival Letter-I executed by defendant No.1 dated 28.05.2012	the
A14	Copy of the Revival Letter-I executed by defendant No.1 dated 20.05.2018	the
A15	Copy of the Revival Letter-I executed by defendant No.1 dated 20.05.2018	the
A16	Copy of Demand Notice U/s. 13(2) of SARFAES 2002 dated 29.01.2015	I Act
A17	Copy of Recall notice dated 12.07.2018
A18	Copy of Reply notice to notice dated 12.07.2 issued by the defendant No.1 dated 06.08.201	018 8
	Copy of the statement of account certified u	nder
A19	Bankers’ Book of Evidence Act showing	the
	outstanding liabilities under OCC No.11001130000081	A/c.

¶59

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Sri. Mohannad Mukthar Mulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Sri. Mohannad Mukthar Mulla

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

Basil Co. versus Kerala Gramin Bank

Uco Bank versus Sh. Bachchan Kumar Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Bhagwant Singh

Indu Kumari Pandey versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S K. K. Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Mr. Praveen