Allowed

Karur Vysya Bank v. Vijaya Sekhar Kasala

DRT26 Sept 2025OA/273/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for a Recovery Certificate under Section 19 RDB Act. The court found the defendants in default on housing loans, evidenced by uncontroverted documents and proceedings ex parte due to non-appearance.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate to be drawn for Rs. 2,73,17,169.26 with 8% simple interest allowing recovery from both schedule properties and personal assets of defendants.

Karur Vysya Bank versus Vijaya Sekhar Kasala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 26^th Day of September, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.273/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

The Karur Vysya Bank Limited, No.6, 1^st Floor, Beside Vasavi Temple, Near Sajjanrao Circle, V. V. Puram, Bangalore -560004 Rep. by its Senior manager

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Vijaya Sekhar Kasala, S/o. Late Krishnaiah,

¶10

Smt. Jayalakshmi K., W/o. Sri. Vijaya Kasala,

¶11

Both are residing at: No.12-5, Venkatapuram, Vavilthota, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh -517127.

¶12

M/s. Concept City Developers, A Partnership Firm having its office at: No.4/A, 9^th Main, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore -560080. Rep. by its Partner Sri. K. S. Rajashekar.

...DEFENDANTS

OA 273/2022

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶17

Applicant Defendants

¶18

: Sri. T. Mohan Das Rao : 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. 2,73,17,169.26 (Rupees two crore seventy-three lakh seventeen thousand one hundred sixty-nine and paisa twenty-six only) with further interest thereon and cost from the Defendants.

¶21

It is the case of the Applicant that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2,

¶22

as borrower and co-borrower respectively, availed two housing loans amounting to Rs. 1,07,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Seven Lakh only) and Rs. 1,69,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty-Nine Lakh only) for the purchase of the Schedule Properties. In respect of the first housing loan, at the request of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the Bank disbursed a sum of Rs. 85,00,000/- (Rupees EightyFive Lakh only) to the Defendant No.3, and in respect of the second housing loan, the Bank disbursed a sum of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Lakh only) to the Defendant No.3.

¶23

OA 273/2022

¶24

¶25

It is also the case of the Applicant that, in view of the above loan, the Defendants executed necessary loan documents in favour of the Applicant bank to secure the loan and also had created mortgage over the schedule properties.

¶26

It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendants, despite availing the credit facility, after agreeing with the Terms and Conditions for the loan, failed in complying with the same, resulting in defaults and consequentially turning the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset (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, taking out the summons through paper publication, there was no appearance of Defendants. Hence, they were called absent and set exparte.

¶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 A22, got the same marked in evidence.

¶30

OA 273/2022

¶31

¶32

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.

¶33

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶34

i) Whether the applicant succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the Defendants?

¶35

ii) If so, to what extent?

¶36

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶37

The case put forth by the Applicant in the Application

¶38

remains unrebutted as Defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the Applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidence put forth by the Applicant is found admissible and are sufficient to prove the averments made in the OA, and the defaults committed by the Defendants in repaying

¶39

the loan amount due. The liability of the Defendants and the loan amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the Applicant is well within the limitation.

¶40

Hence in view of the above findings this Tribunal comes

¶41

to the conclusion that the OA is liable to be allowed.

¶42

OA 273/2022

¶43

¶44

12. Taking into consideration the fact that the loan is availed

¶45

by the Defendants for housing loan purposes and also the fact that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 8.00% (simple). The prayer for interest with monthly rests and for penal interest for the future period is hereby declined.

¶46

In the result, OA.No.273/2022, is allowed,

¶47

i) The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 2,73,17,169.26 (Rupees two crore seventy-three lakh seventeen thousand one hundred sixty-nine and paisa twentysix only) with pendente lite and future interest of 8.00% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the OA till the realization, from

¶48

the Defendants jointly, severally and personally after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA if any, and allow the same to be recovered

¶49

by proceeding against the schedule properties. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶50

ii) Defendant No. 1 & 2 personally and their assets are

¶51

liable to be proceeded against for the shortfall if any to recover

¶52

OA 273/2022

¶53

¶54

the balance amount due.

¶55

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶56

for which Applicant to file cost memo within seven days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶57

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

¶58

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶59

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

¶60

in terms of this final order.

¶61

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

¶62

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

¶63

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶64

(Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26^th day of September, 2025)

¶65

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶66

ANNEXURES

¶67

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶68

AW-1: Smt. Shachi Singh, Legal Officer, of Applicant Bank.

¶69

OA 273/2022

¶70

¶71

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶72

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	23.04.2019	Agreement of sale
A2	06.06.2019	Sanction letter
A3	06.06.2019	Demand promissory note
A4	06.06.2019	Take delivery letter cum continuity letter in relation to DPN
A5	06.06.2019	Housing Loan Agreement
A6	06.06.2019	Agreement cum undertaking to create mortgage
A7	06.06.2019	Tripartite Agreement
A8	06.06.2019	Letter
A9	04.06.2019	Confirmation letter
A10	23.04.2019	Agreement of sale
A11	06.06.2019	Sanction letter
A12	06.06.2019	Demand promissory note
A13	06.06.2019	Take delivery letter cum continuity letter in relation to DPN
A14	06.06.2019	Housing loan Agreement
A15	06.06.2019	Agreement cum undertaking to create mortgage
A16	06.06.2019	Tripartite Agreement
A17	06.06.2019	Letter
A18	04.06.2019	Confirmation letter
A19 & A20	06.12.2021	Legal notices and postal
A21 & A22	--	Extracts of the Statement of accounts

¶73

Witness Examined for the Defendant: -Nil - List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶74

-Nil -

¶75

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karur Vysya Bank v. Vijaya Sekhar Kasala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karur Vysya Bank v. Vijaya Sekhar Kasala

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

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus Nagamma

Bank of Baroda versus Smt Vidyashri Srivasthav

Union Bank of India versus Ms Parexcell Softsource Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Boralinge Gowda Dead by Lrs Smt Sharadamma

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank versus Rajendra Blakrishna Dalal

State Bank of India versus Raghavendra