Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Mr Mahadevappa Malappa Jadhav

DRT23 Sept 2025OA/458/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by a bank seeking a Recovery Certificate against multiple defendants for outstanding loans. As defendants appeared ex parte, the Tribunal found the claim well within limitation, reduced the interest rate to 6.00% p.a., and permitted recovery from schedule properties and personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 71,86,135.40 plus 6% p.a. simple interest from filing to realization, enforceable against schedule properties and personal assets.

Union Bank of India versus Mr Mahadevappa Malappa Jadhav — 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.458/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Bailhongal Branch, Bailhongal, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka, Through its Branch Manager, Mr. Jagdish Rajendraprasad Vajpeyee.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Mr. Mahadevappa Mallappa Jadhav, S/o. Mallappa Jadhav, R/a: Hosur, Taluk Savavadath, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka State.

¶10

Mr. Mahantesh Mallappa Jadhav, S/o. Mallappa Jadhav, R/a: Hosur, Taluk Savavadath, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka State.

¶11

Mr. Shankar Mallappa Jadhav, S/o. Mallappa Jadhav, R/a: Hosur, Taluk Savavadath, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka State.

¶12

Mr. Ramesh Mallappa Jadhav, S/o. Mallappa Jadhav, R/a: Hosur, Taluk Savavadath, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka State.

¶13

Mr. Shivappa Mallappa Jadhav,

¶14

OA 458/2022

¶15

¶16

S/o. Mallappa Jadhav, R/a: Hosur, Taluk Savavadath, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka State.

¶17

Taulasavva Mallappa Jadhav, S/o. Mallappa Jadhav, R/a: Hosur, Taluk Savavadath, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka State.

¶18

Smt. Jyoti Madiwalappa Jadhav, S/o Madiwalappa Jadhav, R/a: Hosur, Taluk Savavadath, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka State.

¶19

Smt. Deepa Anand Chavan, W/o Ananad, #1504 Awardadi, Yettinkeri, Yettinkeri, Kittur, Belgaum- 591115.

¶20

Smt. Prema Madiwalppa Jadhav, R/a: Hosur, Taluk Savavadath, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka State.

¶21

Mr. Kallappa Madiwalappa Jadhav, S/o Madiwalappa Jadhav, R/a: Hosur, Taluk Savavadath, Dist. Belgaum, Karnataka State.

¶22

...DEFENDANTS

¶23

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶24

Applicant : M/s. VS Associates Defendants : Exparte

¶25

FINAL ORDER

¶26

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under

¶27

OA 458/2022

¶28

¶29

section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 71,86,135.40 (Rupees Seventy One Lakh Eighty Six Thousand One Hundred Thirty Five and Paise Forty Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶30

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants have availed the following loans from the applicant bank:

¶31

Rs. 50 lakhs for minor irrigation purpose,

¶32

Rs. 16 lakhs for the purpose of raising sugarcane crop,

¶33

Rs. 1 lakh to meet the liquidity crunch and cash flow mismatch on account of Covid-19.

¶34

The defendants have executed mortgage deed as primary security to the loans availed.

¶35

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with hypothecation agreement, demand promissory note and mortgage deed.

¶36

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

¶37

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal

¶38

by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount

OA 458/2022

due in the account.

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 10.07.2023.

¶43

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-17 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶44

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.

¶45

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶46

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim

¶47

as against the defendants?

¶48

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶49

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶50

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 the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the

¶51

OA 458/2022

¶52

¶53

defendants and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶58

availed for Agricultural purpose and Covid Emergency purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate,

¶59

this Tribunal in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

¶60

In the result, OA.No.458/2022, stands allowed,

¶61

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

¶62

71,86,135.40 (Rupees Seventy One Lakh Eighty Six Thousand One Hundred Thirty Five and Paise Forty Only) with further interest @6.00 %

¶63

p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally & 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.

¶64

OA 458/2022

¶65

¶66

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

¶67

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally & personally and their assets are liable for respective amounts

¶68

due under the respective loan accounts.

¶69

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

¶70

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

¶71

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

¶72

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶73

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

¶74

of this final order.

¶75

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

¶76

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

¶77

Rules, 1993.

¶78

[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].

¶79

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶80

PRESIDING OFFICER

OA 458/2022

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶85

AW-1: Aniket Rajhans S/o Trivikram Rajhans, Branch Head, of Applicant

¶86

Bank.

¶87

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶88

Exhibit Nos.	Particulars of Documents
A1	Sanction letter dated 15.05.2018 issued by the applicant bank along with loan application dated 03.05.2018 issued by the defendants
A2	Simple loan agreement dated 15.05.2018 executed between the applicant bank and the defendants
A3	Hypothecation agreement dated 15.05.2018 executed by the defendants in favour of the applicant bank
A4	Demand promissory note for Rs. 50 lakhs dated 15.05.2018 issued by the defendants in favour of the applicant bank
A5	Declaration/ undertaking dated 5.05.2018 issued by the defendants in favour of the applicant bank
A6	Sanction letter dated 12.07.2018 along with loan application dated 02.07.2018
A7	Simple loan agreement dated 12.07.2018 executed between the applicant bank and the defendants
A8	Letter of declaration/ undertaking dated 12.07.2018 issued by the defendants in favour of the applicant bank
A9	Letter of continuity dated 12.07.2018 issued by the defendants in favour of the applicant bank
A10	Hypothecation agreement dated 12.07.2018 executed by the defendants in favour of the applicant bank
A11	Demand promissory note for Rs. 16 lakhs dated 12.07.2018 issued by the defendants in favour of the applicant bank
A12	Hypothecation agreement dated 08.05.2020 executed by the defendants in favour of the applicant bank
A13	Letter of undertaking dated 08.05.2020 issued by the defendants in favour of the applicant bank
A14	Demand promissory note dated 08.05.2020 issued by the defendants in favour of the applicant bank
A15	Mortgage deed dated 28.02.2018 executed with regard to the schedule properties
A16	Applicant bank was constrained to issue, through its advocate, a notice dated 05.02.2022 and sent by registered A/D

¶89

OA 458/2022

¶90

¶91

demanding repayment of the outstanding liabilities of the defendants A17 True extract of statement of accounts pertaining to the defendants three loan accounts

¶92

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

-Nil -

-Nil -

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Mr Mahadevappa Malappa Jadhav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Mr Mahadevappa Malappa Jadhav

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