Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Smt.Yasmeen Taj

DRT24 Apr 2025OA/659/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for a recovery certificate of approximately Rs. 23.48 lakh. The tribunal reduced the claimed interest rate to 8% simple interest, considering the loan was for agricultural purposes, and ordered execution against the defendants' assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 23,48,316.07 plus 8% simple interest from date of filing, executable against the defendants' property and assets.

Union Bank of India versus Smt.Yasmeen Taj — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of April, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.659/2022

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Union Bank of India, Sarakki Layout Branch, No. 57, 1^st Main Road, 3^rd Phase, Sarakki Indl Area, J P Nagar, Opp: Mini Forest, Bangalore- 560078. Through its Chief Manager, Smt. Radhidevi R P.

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Smt. Yasmeen Taj, W/o. K Sriram, #13 A, 6^th Main Road, Opp: Ekya School, J P Nagar, 3^rd Phase, Bangalore- 560078.

¶9

Sri. K Sriram, S/o. Krishnamurthy, #13 A, 6^th A Main Road, Opp: Ekya School, J P Nagar, 3^rd Phase, Bangalore- 560078.

¶10

...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : M/s. VS Associates Defendants : Exparte

OA 659/2022

FINAL ORDER

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 defendants for Rs. 23,48,316.07 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Sixteen and Paise Seven Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶17

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant Nos. 1 &

¶18

2 as borrowers availed Loan for agricultural purposes of Rs. 3,00,00/- (Rupees Three lakh Only) and Rs. 14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Only).

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed necessary loan documents and Common deed of hypothecation, letter of undertaking and demand promissory note in favour of the applicant bank.

¶20

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and

¶21

OA 659/2022

¶22

¶23

regularly, the defendants failed in compliance of the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶24

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.

¶25

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 12.07.2024.

¶26

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-15 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

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.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶30

OA claim as against the defendants?

¶31

OA 659/2022

¶32

¶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

¶36

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 the credit facilities as stated in the OA, creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶37

11. Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, the

¶38

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

¶39

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶40

are availed for agricultural purpose and also that OA claim is

¶41

OA 659/2022

¶42

¶43

arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal

¶44

in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of

¶45

8.00% (simple).

¶46

In the result, OA.No.659/2022, stands allowed,

¶47

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶48

sum of Rs. 23,48,316.07 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Three Hundred Sixteen and Paise Seven Only) with further interest of 8 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from the defendants, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceedings against schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶49

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

¶50

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally & personally and thier assets are

¶51

liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶52

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶53

OA 659/2022

¶54

¶55

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

¶56

receipt of the order.

¶57

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

¶58

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶59

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

¶60

in terms of this final order.

¶61

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶62

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

¶63

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶64

[Dictated to the Stenographer (AJ), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by

¶65

me in the Open Court, this the 24^th Day of April, 2025].

¶66

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶67

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶68

ANNEXURES

¶69

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶70

AW-1: Karthikeyan N S/o. E V Natarajan, Branch Head, of

¶71

Applicant Bank.

¶72

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶73

Exhibit	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	Applicant Evidence

¶74

OA 659/2022

¶75

¶76

A2	List of Documents.
A3	Sanction letter dated 03.06.2017
A4	Sanction letter dated 03.06.2017
A5	Common deed of hypothecation for agricultural loans executed by defendant No.1 7 2 in favour of applicant dated 06.06.2017
A6	Letter of undertaking from the borrower executed by defendant No.1 7 2 in favour of applicant dated 06.06.2017
A7	Demand Promissory notice along with take delivery letter to DPN executed by defendant No. 1 &2 in favour of applicant dated 31.03.2020
A8	Common Deed of hypothecation for agricultural loans executed by defendant No. 1 & 2 in favour of applicant dated 08.06.2017
A9	Demand promissory note along with take delivery letter to DPN executed by defendant No. 1 & 2 in favour of applicant dated 08.06.2017
A10	Letter of undertaking from the borrower executed by defendant No.1 & 2 in favour of applicant dated 08.06.2017
A11	Demand promissory note along with take delivery letter to DPN executed by defendant No. 1 & 2 in favour of applicant dated 31.03.2020
A12	Memorandum of deposit of title deeds (Mortgage) deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of applicant dated 08.06.2017
A13	Demand notice dated 14.01.2022
A14	True extract of Statement of accounts pertaining to the defendant’s loan accounts-560931000185202
A15	True Extract of Statement of Accounts pertaining to the defendant’s loan accounts- 560381000841949

¶77

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

¶78

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Smt.Yasmeen Taj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Smt.Yasmeen Taj

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

Sheela Ps alias Sheela Ravi versus Federal Bank

M/s S.S Constructions Through its Proprietor Shri Sameer Sheikh Shafi Sheikh versus Capri Global Capital Limited

Sri Mahendra Pradhan And Ors. versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Sh Hem Chand versus Jogindra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Bank of India versus Ms. Bhagyesh Sale, [a Proprietorship Concern]

Canara Bank versus Sri. Lokanath Naidu.K