Allowed

Canara Bank v. Shashi Kumar

DRT25 Nov 2025OA/614/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Canara Bank for issuance of a recovery certificate against two defendants for a term loan default. The court found the evidence uncontroverted and awarded principal amount with interest at 10% p.a. (simple), directing recovery from movable/immovable assets.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for aggregate sum of Rs. 21,49,020/- with 10% p.a. simple interest from filing date against defendants jointly and severally and sale of schedule property.

Canara Bank versus Shashi Kumar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 25^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.614/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank, Sri Harimadhukrupa Building, Sandal Soap Factory Stop, Vidyanagar Shimoga, Karnataka -577203, Rep. by Branch Manager & P. A. Holder,

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Shashi Kumar B, S/o. Basavarajappa, Properitor of: M/s. Shree Guru Polymers Plot No. 22/J2, Sy. No. 78, Jedikatte, Machenahalli, Bhadravathi, Shimoga -577222.

¶10

Also at: Sri. Shashi Kumar B, S/o. Basavarajappa, #34 Seeta Rampura Road, Bhadravathi Taluk, Athigunda, Aralihalli Shimoga, Karnataka -577233.

¶11

Sri. Subba Rao, S/o. Sankar Rao, #38/1, Samruddi Nilaya, Opposite Dharmashree Bhavan, Kalidasa Badavane, Sidharudanagar,

¶12

OA 614/2022

¶13

¶14

Old town Bhadravati, Shimoga -577301.

¶15

...DEFENDANTS

¶16

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶17

Applicant : Sri. Naveen Tao Defendant No.1 : Sri. Prakash T. S (WS Closed) Defendant No.2 : Exparte

¶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 for Rs. 21,49,020/(Rupees twenty-one lakh forty-nine thousand and twenty only) with further interest thereon and cost from the Defendants.

¶20

It is the case of the Applicant that Defendant No.1, is the proprietor M/s. Shree Guru Polymers as borrower, and Defendant No.2 as the guarantor, had availed a Term loan facility of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakh only) for the purpose of the business of Defendant No.1.

¶21

It is also the case of the Applicant that, in view of the above loan, the Defendants executed necessary loan documents in favour of the Applicant bank to secure the loan and also had created mortgage over the schedule property.

¶22

OA 614/2022

¶23

¶24

It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendants, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing with the Terms and Conditions for the loans, failed in complying with the same, resulting in defaults and consequentially turning the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

¶25

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.

¶26

Summons were served on the Defendants. Defendant No.

¶27

1 filed a vakalat through his counsel but failed to file the written statement within the stipulated time; accordingly, his right to file the written statement was closed on 22.09.2023. Service of summons on Defendant No. 2 was also completed, but he failed to appear; hence, he was called absent and set ex parte on 22.09.2023.

¶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-3 to A-21, got the same marked in evidence.

¶29

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered

¶30

OA 614/2022

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶34

i) Whether the Applicant succeeded in proving the OA

¶35

claim as against the Defendants?

¶36

ii) If so, to what extent?

¶37

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶38

The evidence tendered by the Applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidence put forth by the Applicant is found admissible and sufficient to prove the averments made in the OA, and the default committed by the Defendants in repaying the loan amount due. The liability of the Defendants and the loan amount due are also proved by the above documents.

¶39

Hence in view of the above findings this Tribunal comes

¶40

to the conclusion that the OA is liable to be allowed.

¶41

The OA has been filed within the period of limitation.

¶42

There is no capitalization of penal interest. Since the credit

¶43

OA 614/2022

¶44

¶45

facility was availed for business purpose, pendente lite and future interest are awarded at 10.00% per annum (simple interest). The prayer for interest with monthly rests and for

¶46

penal interest for the future period is hereby declined.

¶47

In the result, OA.No.614/2022, is allowed,

¶48

i) The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 21,49,020/- (Rupees twenty one lakh forty-nine thousand

¶49

and twenty only) with pendente lite and future interest of 10.00% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the OA till the realization, from the Defendants jointly, severally and personally after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA if any, and allow the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule property. Property schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶50

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

¶51

the loan amount due from Defendants jointly, severally and personally, then the Applicant bank is at liberty to proceeded against their other assets for the recovery of the balance due.

¶52

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶53

OA 614/2022

¶54

¶55

for which Applicant to file cost memo within seven days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶56

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

¶57

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶58

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

¶59

in terms of this final order.

¶60

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

¶61

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

¶62

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶63

(Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25^th day of November, 2025)

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

(T. RAJESH)

¶66

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶67

ANNEXURES

¶68

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶69

AW-1: Smt. Suneetha D. S., Senior Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶70

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶71

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	--	Evidence affidavit
A2	--	List of documents
A3	14.03.2019	Application form

¶72

OA 614/2022

¶73

¶74

A4	14.03.2019	Loan agreement
A5	14.03.2019	Letter of undertaking
A6	14.03.2019	Guarantor Agreement covering letter
A7	14.03.2019	Guarantor agreement of Sri. SubbaRao
A8	14.03.2019	Sanction memorandum
A9	08.03.2019	Memorandum of Deposit of Title deed
A10	14.12.2020	Legal Notice
A11	14.12.2020	English translated copy of the legal notice
A12	14.12.2020	Postal receipt
A13	--	Return postal cover
A14	--	Acknowledgement card duly served to Sri. Subbarao.
A15	17.04.2021	Demand notice
A16	17.04.2021	Demand notice
A17	17.04.2021	Demand notice
A18	--	Acknowledgement card
A19	--	Return postal cover
A20	--	Return postal cover
A21	--	Bank statement

¶75

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶76

-Nil -

¶77

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶78

-Nil -

¶79

Sd/-

¶80

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Shashi Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Shashi Kumar

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