Allowed

Canara Bank v. Ms Vannaruthamma Brick Industry

DRT25 Nov 2025OA/492/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Debt Recovery Tribunal order, the court allowed an application for a Recovery Certificate against a brick industry proprietor. The defendant appeared ex parte after entering appearance but failing to file a written statement, leaving the bank's evidence uncontroverted.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 39,55,710.18 with reduced interest at 9% simple p.a., executable against personal assets and schedule properties.

Canara Bank versus Ms Vannaruthamma Brick Industry — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA

¶2

AT BENGALURU

¶3

Dated this 25^th Day of November, 2025

¶4

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶5

Presiding Officer

¶6

OA.No.492/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Canara Bank, Kodamballi Branch, Chamundeshwari Nilaya, No.4, Main Road, Kodamballi, Ramanagara Dist, Karnataka- 562140, Through its Senior Manager, Deep Prabhat.

¶9

…APPLICANT

¶10

AND:

¶11

M/s. Vannaruthamma Brick Industry, Proprietor: M N Arun Kumar, S/o Ninge Gowda, Mangadahalli Village, Virupakshipura Hobli, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara Dist, Karnataka- 562140.

¶12

...DEFENDANT

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : M/s. VS Associates Defendant : M S Manjanna

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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. 39,55,710.18

¶17

OA 492/2022

¶18

¶19

(Rupees Thirty Nine Lakh Fifty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Ten and Paise Eighteen Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant availed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only) and Rs. 15,85,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Only) and Rs. 5,65,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Only) for business purpose.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Despite, entering appearance by filing Vakalath but failed to file written statement within the stipulated, no representation, called absent, placed exparte on 11.11.2025.

¶25

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced

¶26

OA 492/2022

¶27

¶28

Exhibits A-3 to A-17 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

¶32

as against the defendant?

¶33

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

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 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.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

OA 492/2022

¶39

¶40

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶41

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 9.00% (simple).

¶42

In the result, OA.No.492/2022, stands allowed,

¶43

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 39,55,710.18 (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakh Fifty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Ten and Paise Eighteen Only) with further interest @9.00 % 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.

¶44

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

¶45

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant personally

¶46

and his assets are liable for respective amounts due under the respective loan accounts.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

OA 492/2022

¶51

¶52

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶53

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

¶54

of this final order.

¶55

14. 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 25^th Day of November, 2025].

¶59

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶60

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶61

ANNEXURES

¶62

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶63

AW-1: Vishwambhara M, Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶64

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶65

Exhibit Nos.	Particulars of Documents
A3	Request for overdraft facilities executed by defendant No.1 in favour of applicant dated 03.05.2013
A4	Letter of undertaking re: loans/advances executed by defendant NO.1 in favour of applicant dated 03.05.2013
A5	Cash credit agreement executed by defendant No.1 in favour of applicant dated 03.05.2013
A6	Demand promissory note executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of applicant dated 03.05.2013
A7	Demand promissory note for enhanced portion of Rs. 1,30,000/- executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of applicant dated 19.12.2014
A8	Cash credit agreement executed by defendant No.1 in favour of applicant dated 19.12.2014

¶66

OA 492/2022

¶67

¶68

A9	Letter of undertaking re: loans/ advances executed by defendant No.1 in favour of applicant dated 03.05.2013
A10	Deed of hypothecation re: machinery executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of applicant dated 03.05.2013
A11	Term loan agreement executed by defendant No.1 in favour of applicant dated 03.05.2013
A12	Agreement-cum-deed of hypothecation executed by defendant No.1 in favour of applicant dated 23.02.2015
A13	Mortgage dated 02.05.2013 and 29.11.2014
A14	SARFEASI Notice dated 12.10.2021
A15	True extract of statement of accounts pertaining to the defendant’s loan accounts-0497261000031
A16	True extract of statement of accounts pertaining to the defendant’s loan accounts- 0497766000002
A17	True extract of statement of accounts pertaining to the defendant’s loan accounts-0497768009191

¶69

Witness Examined for the Defendant:

¶70

-Nil -

¶71

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant:

¶72

-Nil -

¶73

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶74

PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Ms Vannaruthamma Brick Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Ms Vannaruthamma Brick Industry

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

Basil Co. versus Kerala Gramin Bank

Uco Bank versus Sh. Bachchan Kumar Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Bhagwant Singh

Indu Kumari Pandey versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S K. K. Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Mr. Praveen