Allowed

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Lakshman

DRT26 Sept 2025OA/424/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed the bank's application for a recovery certificate. The court held the evidence sufficient despite non-appearance of defendants, reducing the interest rate to 8% simple per annum while directing recovery from defendants and their properties.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 42,59,139.34 with 8% simple interest recoverable jointly and severally by proceeding against schedule properties.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Lakshman — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 26^th Day of September 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.424/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

The Karnataka bank limited Its registered and head office at: Mahaveera Circle, PB No.599, Kankanady, Mangaluru – 575 002 And a Branch Office amongst Others At: S No. 26/27/28, Uttarahalli Main Road, Uttarahalli, Bengaluru – 560 061

¶7

Represented by its Branch manager, Sri. H R Suresha

¶8

…APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

1.Sri. Lakshman Reddy, S/O. Aiyulu Reddy, Aged About 66 Years

¶11

Sri. Shiva Kumar L S/O. Sri. Lakshman Reddy, Aged About 35 Years

¶12

Smt. Mohanamma W/O. Sri. Lakshman Reddy Aged About 58 Years

¶13

All defendants no.1 to 3 are R/At: No. 21, 3^rd Floor, ‘Krishna Residency’, 6^th Cross, 8^th Main, Kasha Nagar, Yelleachinahalli, Bengaluru – 560 062 ...DEFENDANTS

¶14

OA-424/2022

¶15

¶16

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶17

Applicant : A Ganesh Defendants : Ex parte

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

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.42,59,139.34/- (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred Thirty Nine And Paisa Thirty Four Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed an business term loan of Rs. 22,40,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Forty Thousands Only) for purchase of residential apartment.

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed the necessary loan documents along with term loan agreement and memorandum of deposit of title deeds.

¶22

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, 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 accounts as NPA.

¶23

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this

¶24

OA-424/2022

¶25

¶26

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

¶27

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 04.06.20258.

¶28

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-12 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶29

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.

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶31

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

¶32

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶33

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶34

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained ex parte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed.

¶35

The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible

¶36

and are sufficient to prove availment of credit facilities as stated in

¶37

OA-424/2022

¶38

¶39

the OA, creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the

¶40

amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶41

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

¶42

find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶43

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶44

availed for Housing 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 8.00% (simple).

¶45

In the result, OA.No.424/2022, stands allowed,

¶46

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.42,59,139.34/- (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred Thirty Nine and Paisa Thirty Four Only) with further interest @8.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severely and personally, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency

¶47

of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule properties.

¶48

OA-424/2022

¶49

¶50

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

¶51

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the

¶52

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants

¶53

jointly, severely and personally and their assets are liable for all such

¶54

amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶55

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶59

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

¶60

Final Order.

¶61

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶62

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

¶63

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶64

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 26^th Day of August, 2025].

¶65

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶66

PRESIDING OFFICER

OA-424/2022

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶71

AW-1: Guruprasad B, S/o. Sri Sripathi Rao, Worked as senior branch

¶72

Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶73

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶74

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	29.01.2011	Sanction order
A2	31.01.2011	Declaration by the defendant
A3	31.01.2011	Consent letter from defendant no1 & 2
A4	31.01.2011	Consent letter from defendant no2 & 3
A5	31.01.2011	Term loan agreement
A6	02.02.2011	Memorandum of deposit of title deeds
A7	31.01.2011	Sale deed
A8	28.11.2013	Acknowledgment of debt
A9	26.05.2016	Acknowledgment of debt
A10	21.03.2019	Acknowledgment of debt
A11	-------	Certificate
A12	-------	Statement of account

¶75

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

¶76

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Lakshman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Lakshman

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.

Karur Vysya Bank versus Vijaya Sekhar Kasala

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Boralinge Gowda Dead by Lrs Smt Sharadamma

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank versus Rajendra Blakrishna Dalal