Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sgr Infratech Solution

DRT23 Sept 2025OA/268/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an application for a recovery certificate of Rs.29,93,764/- with interest. The creditors proved loan avowance, hypothecation, and default via evidence as the debtors were present ex parte, with no claim against未来的 monthly penal interest.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs.29,93,764/- with 11.15% p.a. simple interest from filing date. Declined prayer for monthly rest and future penal interest.

Canara Bank versus Sgr Infratech Solution — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 23^nd Day of September, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.268/2023

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank Branch Office at: Ballal Complex, Ashoka Circle, Mysore District, Mysore-570004

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

M/s. SGR INFRA TECH Solutions No.32/C-1, 2^nd Stage, Industrial Suburb, Mysore-570008 Represented by its Proprietrix Smt. Sneha K N

¶9

Smt. Sneha K N D/o Sri. Natraj KB, Proprietrix of M/s SGR Infra Tech Solutions, No.7, Sarojamma Nilaya, Rajgopal Nagar Main Road, Rajeshwari Nagar, Opp: Vignan Public School, Laggere, Bengaluru-560058

¶10

...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : Raghavendra G.K. Defendants : Exparte

OA 268-2023

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 Rs.29,93,764/- (Rupees twenty nine lakh ninety three thousand seven hundred sixty four only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶17

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant No.1 a Proprietorship concern with defendant No.2 as its Proprietrix had availed the OD credit facilities of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakh only) from the applicant bank.

¶18

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with On Demand Promissory Note and cash credit agreement in favor of the applicant bank.

¶19

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.

¶20

¶21

OA 268-2023

¶22

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this

¶23

Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

¶24

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 29.01.2025.

¶25

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-10 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶29

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶30

OA 268-2023

¶31

¶32

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 hypothecation 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

¶33

of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶34

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this

¶35

Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence

¶36

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

¶37

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶38

are availed by defendant for OD Facility purpose, this Tribunal in

¶39

view of the rate of interest as claimed need not be reduced.

¶40

However, as the OA Claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate and also by applying default interest, the prayer

¶41

for monthly rest and future penal interest are declined.

¶42

OA 268-2023

¶43

¶44

13. In the result, OA.No.268/2023, stands allowed,

¶45

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶46

sum of Rs.29,93,764/- (Rupees Twenty nine lakh ninety three

¶47

thousand seven hundred sixty four only) with further interest @ 11.15% p.a. (Simple),

¶48

from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants 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 the defendants jointly severally personally and their assets including the schedule

¶49

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

¶50

ii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶54

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

¶55

in terms of this final order.

¶56

OA 268-2023

¶57

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶61

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by

¶62

me in the Open Court, this the 23^rd day of September, 2025].

¶63

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶64

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶65

ANNEXURES

¶66

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶67

AW-1: Jayalakshmi. M, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶68

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶69

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	06.11.2020	Letter of Proprietorship
A2	06.11.2020	Request for over draft facilities
A3	06.11.2020	Cash Credit Agreement
A4	06.11.2020	On Demand Promissory Note
A5 to A9	30.09.2022	Office copy of legal notice, postal receipts (2Nos.) Postal Acknowledgement Card and returned postal Cover.
A10		Statement of Account Extract

¶70

Witness Examined for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶71

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶72

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Sgr Infratech Solution

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sgr Infratech Solution

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

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Sri Acha Shirishaila

Punjab National Bank versus G Krishnamurhty

Icici Bank Limited versus Svb Infra Projects

Canara Bank versus Veena Shetty

Union Bank of India versus Munivenkate Gowda

Union Bank of India versus Sukumar Mohan