Allowed

Canara Bank v. Shyammala

DRT19 Sept 2025OA/279/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an original application for recovery certificate under S. 19 RDB Act 1993. It held the claim valid against legal heirs liable only to the extent of the inherited estate. Interest was reduced to 12% simple with permission to recover against schedule property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 65,32,050 plus interest at 12% p.a. (simple) from date of application against schedule property.

Canara Bank versus Shyammala — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 19^th Day of September, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.279/2022

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank, Kundapur Main II UM Branch, Udupi District, Represented by its Branch Manager.

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Shyammala Shetty, S/o Late Surendra Shetty, Ambika Guest House, Post Kollur, Kundapura Taluk 576233.

¶9

Shakila Shetty, D/o Late Surendra Shetty, Ambika Guest House, Post Kollur, Kundapura Taluk 576233.

¶10

K Prakash Shetty, S/o Late Surendra Shetty, Shakila Nilaya, Sagar Rod, Kollur, Kundapur Taluk ...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : Latha Shetty Defendants No.1 & 2 : Exparte Defendant No.3 : Murali SM

OA 279/2022

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 against the defendants for Rs. 65,32,050 (Rupees Sixty Five Lakh Thirty Two Thousand and Fifty Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶17

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants are the legal heirs of borrower Late Surendra Shetty. The deceased borrower availed a term loan of Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakh Only).

¶18

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the deceased borrower executed necessary loan documents along with memorandum of deposit of title deed and letter of revival.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Even though the defendants No. 1 & 2 entered appearance and sought time for filing the written statements, no written statements/

¶22

OA 279/2022

¶23

¶24

vakalath were filed, hence places exparte. Defendant No.3 entered appearance through counsel by filing vakalath, but failed to file written statement till date, hence written statement of defendant No.3 is closed.

¶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-11 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 proof affidavit.

¶27

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶28

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 facilities as stated in the OA, creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in

¶32

the accounts. The claim of the amount due is also proved by the above

¶33

OA 279/2022

¶34

¶35

documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶36

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, the Tribunal find

¶37

both these issues in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of the

¶38

view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶39

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶40

availed for Business purpose 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 of 12.00% (simple).

¶41

In the result, OA.No.279/2022, stands allowed,

¶42

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.

¶43

65,32,050 (Rupees Sixty Five Lakh Thirty Two Thousand and Fifty Only) with further interest @12.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the against the schedule property. Properties Schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶44

ii) The defendants being the LRs of the deceased borrowers are

¶45

liable only to the extent of the estate inherited by them from the deceased.

¶46

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings which

¶47

OA 279/2022

¶48

¶49

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

¶50

order.

¶51

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

¶52

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶53

v) Interim application pending, if any, are disposed of with this

¶54

Final Order.

¶55

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms

¶56

of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure)

¶57

Rules, 1993.

¶58

[Dictated to the Stenographer (AJ), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 19^th Day of September, 2025].

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

(T. RAJESH)

¶61

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶62

ANNEXURES

¶63

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶64

AW-1: Sreelakshmi W/o Sheshadri, Officer, of Applicant Bank.

¶65

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶66

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	28.01.2016	Application for grant of loan
A2	08.02.2016	Sanction memorandum
A3	08.02.2016	Memorandum of deposit of title deeds
A4	08.02.2016	Term loan agreement
A5	05.05.2018	Death certificate of Surendra Shetty
A6	10.12.2018	Letter of revival by Mrs Susheela Shetty & defendant No.1

¶67

OA 279/2022

¶68

¶69

A7	10.12.2018	Acknowledgement of liability/ debt defendant No.2	of
A8	10.12.2018	Acknowledgement of liability/ debt defendant no.2	of
A9	29.11.2019	Death certificate of Mrs Susheel Shetty
A10	--	Statement of account in 0113991000216
A11	15.11.2021	Notice issued to defendants

¶70

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

¶71

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Shyammala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Shyammala

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

Abbas Ca versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sachin Kumar Kaushal

Canara Bank versus M/S Avtar Bag Factory

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Hardik

Ms Habib Agro Industries Rep by Its Partners and Legal Heir of Late Sri Habib Khan and Others versus the Authorised Officer Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

Ms Habib Agro Industries Rep by Its Industries Rep by Its Partner and Legal Heirs of Late Sri Habib Khan and Others versus the Authorised Officer Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.