Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Madivalappa

DRT23 Sept 2025OA/443/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against a defaulting borrower. The court fixed the interest rate at 6% simple and enabled recovery from personal assets and schedule property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 42,22,981/- with interest @ 6.00% p.a. (simple) from date of filing; recovery from defendant personally and schedule property.

Union Bank of India versus Madivalappa — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 23^rd Day of September, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.443/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Interalia branch at Kalaburagi Branch, Plot No. 104-105, 1^st Floor, Inderdas Towers, Super Market, Kalaburagi- 585101, Represented by its Branch manager, Mr. Pran Mohan Mishra, S/o Pramod Kumar Mishra, Aged about 34 years.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Mr. Madivalappa, S/o Shivaraya Batageri, Aged about 71 years, R/at: Bandarwad Village, Afzalpur Taluk, Kalaburagi District- 585102.

¶10

...DEFENDANT

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : Sri. Shivashankar A Defendant : Exparte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

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 defendant for Rs. 42,22,981/- (Rupees Forty Two lakh Twenty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Eight One only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till

OA 443/2024

realization.

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant availed Crop kisan loan scheme of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Only) and Crop kisan credit card of Rs. 16,80,000/- (Rupees Sixteen lakh Eighty Thousand Only).

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with common deed of hypothecation and deed of simple mortgage.

¶20

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

¶21

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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-22 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the

¶26

OA 443/2024

¶27

¶28

contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶29

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶30

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

¶31

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶32

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶33

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant 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

¶34

availment of credit facilities as stated in the OA, creation of the security interest 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 findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal

¶36

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

¶37

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶38

availed for Agricultural purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at

¶39

OA 443/2024

¶40

¶41

by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view of the OA

¶42

can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

¶43

In the result, OA.No.443/2024, stands allowed,

¶44

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of 42,22,981/- (Rupees Forty Two lakh Twenty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Eight One only) with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendant 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 proceeding against schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶45

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant personally and his assets are liable for respective amounts due under the respective loan accounts.

¶46

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

¶47

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶48

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

OA 443/2024

of this final order.

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

¶53

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

¶54

Rules, 1993.

¶55

[Dictated to the Stenographer (AJ), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 23^rd Day of September, 2025].

¶56

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶57

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶58

ANNEXURES

¶59

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶60

AW-1: Pran Mohan Mishra S/o Pramod Kumar Mishra, Branch Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶61

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶62

Exhibit Nos.	Particulars of Documents
A1	Gazette notification ( Amalgamation of Andhra Bank and Corporation bank into union bank of India) dated 04.03.2020
A2 to A4	Loan application dated 05.05.2015, sanction letter dated 05.05.2015 and agreement for term loan dated 05.05.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the applicant bank
A5	Letter of undertaking dated 05.05.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of applicant/ plaintiff bank
A6	Common deed of hypothecation for agricultural loans dated 05.05.2015 executed by defendant in favour of applicant/ plaintiff bank
A7 to A-9	Acknowledgement of debt/ liability dated 31.08.2017, 21.02.2018 and composite debt balance confirmation dated 15.02.2021 executed by the defendants in favour of applicant/ plaintiff bank

¶63

OA 443/2024

¶64

¶65

A10	Certified copy of the statement of account extract bearing No. 560941000248140
A11 to A13	Loan application dated 06.05.2015, Sanction letter dated 06.05.2015 and demand promissory note dated 06.05.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of applicant/ plaintiff bank
A14	Take delivery letter to DPN dated 06.05.2015 executed defendant
A15	Letter of undertaking dated 06.05.2015 executed by defendant in favour of applicant/ plaintiff bank
A16	Common deed of hypothecation for agricultural loans dated 06.05.2015 executed by defendant in favour of applicant/ plaintiff bank
A17	Deed of simple mortgage dated 04.05.2015 executed by defendant in favour of applicant/ plaintiff bank
A18 to A20	Acknowledgement of debt/ liability dated 31.08.2017, 21.02.2018 and composite debt balance confirmation dated 15.02.2021 executed by the defendants in favour of applicant/ plaintiff bank
A21	Certified copy of statement of account extract bearing No. 560961000024293
A22	Legal notice dated 07.07.2023 and along with postal receipt

¶66

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

-Nil -

-Nil -

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Madivalappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Madivalappa

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