Allowed

Canara Bank v. Ms Brahma Surgical Pharma Prop of Mr. Abhishek Raghu Shetty

DRT5 Dec 2025OA/576/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Karnataka allowed an Original Application filed by Canara Bank for a recovery certificate of Rs. 32.22 lakhs against a defaulting borrower. The defendant appeared ex parte. The Tribunal admitted the claim but awarded interest at a reduced rate of 12% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate drawn for Rs. 32,22,649.93 with interest at 12% p.a. (simple) to be executed against proceeds from schedule properties and personal assets if insufficient.

Canara Bank versus Ms Brahma Surgical Pharma Prop of Mr. Abhishek… — Money Laundering | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 05^th Day of December, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer OA.No.576/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Station road Branch, Noorani plaza, Near head post office, Mujawar galli, station road, Belgaum – 590 001

¶7

Represented by its Branch manager Ms. Deepa Annagouda Patil …APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Mr. Abhishek Raghu Shetty Proprietor of: M/s. Brahma Surgical Pharma A proprietorship concern having it’s: Registered office at: CTS No. 4881/23A1E Fulbagh Galli, Near Deshpande Petrol Pump, Belgaum – 590 001

¶10

Also at: Kunigadde, Kavradi Village and Post, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District – 576 211 ...DEFENDANT

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : M Mohan Rao Defendant : Ex parte

¶13

2 OA-576/2024

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

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. 32,22,649.93/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Nine and Paisa Ninety Three Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶16

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant is availed the following credit facilities:

¶17

Overdraft Facility of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) for the purpose of purchase of surgical equipment’s and also for working capital requirements.

¶18

GECL loan facility of Rs. 2,38,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Only) for the purpose of operational liabilities, to restart business.

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendant executed the necessary loan document along with deed of hypothecation.

¶20

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan amount 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 by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for

¶22

3 OA-576/2024

¶23

the amount due in the account.

¶24

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set ex parte on 12.12.2024.

¶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

¶29

claim as against the defendant?

¶30

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant remained ex parte. 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,

¶33

creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the

¶34

accounts. The liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount

¶35

4 OA-576/2024

¶36

due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the

¶37

applicant is well within the limitation.

¶38

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

¶39

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are availed for Business purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal of the view that OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 12.00%(simple).

¶40

In the result, OA.No.576/2024 stands allowed,

¶41

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of

¶42

Rs. 32,22,649.93/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand

¶43

Six Hundred and Forty Nine and Paisa Ninety Three Only) with further interest @12.00% 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 the schedule 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

¶46

5 OA-576/2024

¶47

personally and his assets are liable for balance amounts due under

¶48

the loan accounts.

¶49

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶50

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

¶51

receipt of the order

¶52

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

¶53

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶54

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

¶55

terms of this final order.

¶56

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶57

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

¶58

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶59

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in

¶60

the Open Court, this the 05^th Day of December, 2025].

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶63

ANNEXURES

¶64

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶65

AW-1: Tajahmmad B Gorekhan, S/o. Baseerahmad, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶66

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶67

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	08.06.2021	Loan application
A2	08.06.2021	Loan sanction letter
A3	08.06.2021	Demand promissory note executed by defendant in favour of the applicant bank
A4	08.06.2021	Cash credit agreement executed by defendant in favour of the applicant bank
A5	------	Statement of account
A6	08.12.2021	Loan application
A7	08.12.2021	Loan sanction letter
A8	08.12.2021	Demand promissory note executed by defendant in favour of the applicant bank
A9	08.12.2021	Agreement cum deed of hypothecation executed by defendant in favour of the applicant bank
A10	16.06.2023	Legal notice issued by the applicant bank to the defendant
A11	-------	Statement of account

¶68

Witness Examined for the Defendant:

¶69

-Nil -

¶70

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant:

¶71

-Nil -

¶72

Sd/-

Canara Bank v. Ms Brahma Surgical Pharma Prop of Mr. Abhishek Raghu Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Ms Brahma Surgical Pharma Prop of Mr. Abhishek Raghu Shetty

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

Mr Satya Narayan Prasad versus Union Bank of India

Sangeeta Agrawal versus Punjab National Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Madhuri and Anr.

Mr Aloke Bhattacharjee And Anr. versus Axis Bank

State Bank of India versus M/S Steel House Private Limited

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Nagarathnamma