Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri C Ponguruswamy

DRT25 Nov 2025OA/696/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Canara Bank for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against the Defendant for a principal sum of Rs. 34,13,938/- with reduced interest at 12% p.a. simple, as the Defendant was absent and evidence was uncontroverted.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 34,13,938/- with interest at 12% p.a. (simple) from filing date till realization, recoverable personally and against the schedule.

Canara Bank versus Sri C Ponguruswamy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 25^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.696/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Bangarpet Branch Near Old Santhe Maidan Kolar Main Road, Bangarpet, Kolar District, Rep. by its Chief Manager Sri. Tulasiram N H

¶7

… APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. C. Ponguruswamy S/o. Chidambarswamy Proprietor of M/s. Sri. Ganesh & Co., Aged about 74 years Company address: M/s. Sri Ganesh & Co., # 32/28/32, Desihalli, K G F Road, (PSR Rice Mill Compound) Bangarpet-563114 Also at: 2^nd Main, 4^th Cross, Amaravathi Layout, Bangarpet, Kolar-563114

¶10

...DEFENDANT

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : Sri. M.S. Vinayaka Defendant : Exparte

¶13

:FINAL ORDER:

¶14

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

¶15

under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for

¶16

OA. No.696/2022

¶17

¶18

seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendant for Rs.34,13,938/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakh Thirteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Eight Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶19

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

¶20

i. OCC loan facility of Rs.25,00,000/enhanced from Rs.20,00,000/- on 23.10.2019.

¶21

ii. Term loan facility of Rs.2,40,000/- on 26.05.2020

¶22

iii. CFTIL loan facility of Rs.1,35,388/- on 03.09.2020

¶23

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facilities, the defendant executed necessary loan documents. Apart from the creation of security interest by way of hypothecation over the Schedule.

¶24

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 account as NPA.

¶25

OA. No.696/2022

¶26

¶27

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.

¶28

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 27.02.2024.

¶29

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A3 to A26 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶30

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the

¶31

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

¶32

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶33

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶34

claim as against the defendant?

¶35

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶36

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶37

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶38

remains unrebutted as defendant remained exparte. The evidence

¶39

tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and

¶40

OA. No.696/2022

¶41

¶42

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 security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. 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.

¶43

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the

¶44

issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶45

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶46

were availed for business purpose and also that 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 12.00%

¶47

p.a.(simple).

¶48

In the result, OA.No.696/2022 stands allowed,

¶49

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶50

of Rs.34,13,938/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakh Thirteen Thousand

¶51

OA. No.696/2022

¶52

¶53

Nine Hundred and Thirty Eight Only) with further interest of 12.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization

¶54

from the defendant, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against defendant personally and also by proceeding against the schedule. The schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶55

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant personally and his other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶56

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶57

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

¶58

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶59

v) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of with this Final Order.

¶60

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 of

¶62

OA. No.696/2022

¶63

¶64

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶65

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 25^th Day of November 2025].

¶66

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶67

ANNEXURES

¶68

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶69

AW-1: Sri. Prasannakumaran C, Manager of the applicant bank.

¶70

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶71

Annexure	Date	Particulars
A3	23.10.2019	Loan Application Form Submitted Defendant	By
A4	23.10.2019	Loan sanction memorandum
A5	23.10.2019	Letter of Proprietorship executed defendant in favour of applicant	by
A6	23.10.2019	Request for overdraft facilit executed by defendant in favour applicant	ies of
A7	23.10.2019	Pronote executed by defendant favour of applicant	in
A8	23.10.2019	Supplemental agreement execu bydefendant in favour of applican	ted t
A9	23.10.2019	letter of renewal and letter of revi executed by defendant in favour applicant	val of
A10	23.10.2019	Link letter in respect of enhancem of credit facilities executed defendant in favour of applicant	ent by
A11	26.05.2020	Loan application form submitted defendant	by
A12	26.05.2020	Loan sanction memorandum

¶72

OA. No.696/2022

¶73

¶74

A13	26.05.2020	Specimen signature card executed defendant in favour of applicant	by
A14	26.05.2020	Letter or proprietorship executed defendant in favour of applicant	by
	26.05.2020	Common deed of hypothecat	ion
A15		executed by defendant in favour applicant	of
	26.05.2020	letter of undertaking	re:
A16		loans/advances executed defendant in favour of applicant	by
A17	26.05.2020	Irrevocable mandate for deduct from SB Account executed defendant in favour of applicant	ion by
A18	26.05.2020	Undertaking letter executed defendant in favour of applicant b	by nak
A19	26.05.2020	letter of undertaking
A20	01.01.2021	Letter of revival executed defendant in favour of applicant	by
A21	02.07.2021	Legal notice issued to defendant
A22	-	Returnedpostal cover
A23	-	Returnedpostal cover
A24	-	Statement of account of term loan
A25	-	Statement of account of OCC loan
A26	-	Statement of account CFITL loan

¶75

Sd/-

¶76

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Sri C Ponguruswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri C Ponguruswamy

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