Allowed

Canara Bank v. Ganesh Bio Energy Inc.

DRT25 Nov 2025OA/697/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for a recovery certificate against the defendants, partners and guarantors of a firm, for a loan default, reducing the claim's interest rate to 12% p.a. simple.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate for Rs. 65,37,938/- plus interest at 12% p.a. simple; costs awarded; certificate to be drawn and transferred for execution.

Canara Bank versus Ganesh Bio Energy Inc. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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.697/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank, Nelamangala Branch, B.H. Road, Nelamangala, Bangalore Rural District- 562 123, By its Manager, Monalisa Tripathy, Wife of Abhijit Dash, Aged about 31 years.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

M/s. Ganesh Bio Energy Inc, A partnership firm by its partners, Smt. Rashmi Prakash And Smt. Lakshmi and Laithamma, No. 56/1, Malangatti Village, Near T Begur, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk- 562 123, Bangalore Rural District.

¶10

Smt. Rashmi Prakash Alias Reshma, Wife of Sri Praksh G Upanal, Aged about 49 years, No. 647, 2^nd Block, Bhavaninagara, Railway Layout, Near Vidhyanikethan School, Bangalore- 560 091.

¶11

Miss Lakshmi, Daughter of Prakash G Upanal, Aged about 28 years, No. 647, 2^nd Block, Bhavaninagara, Railway Layout, near Vidhyanikethan School, Bangalore- 560 091.

¶12

Smt. Lalithamma, Wife of late Basappa,

¶13

OA 697/2022

¶14

¶15

Aged about 58 years, No. 65, 2^nd Cross, Muddinpalya, Vishwaneedam Post, Bangalore- 560 091. ...DEFENDANTS

¶16

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶17

Applicant : M. S. Vinayaka Defendants : 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 against the defendants for Rs. 65,37,938/- (Rupees Sixty Five lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Eight Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization. The 1^st defendant is a partnership from represented by its partners defendants Nos. 2 to 4.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants availed term loan facility of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs Only) and cash credit limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs Only).

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with guarantee agreement and common hypothecation agreement.

¶22

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, the defendants failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment

¶23

OA 697/2022

¶24

¶25

and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶26

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the balance amount due in the account.

¶27

Despite, summons on the defendants, they failed to appear resulting the defendants being set exparte on 27.02.2024.

¶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-33 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 defendants?

¶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 defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by

¶36

the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put

¶37

OA 697/2022

¶38

¶39

forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶44

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

¶45

be allowed with a reduced interest of 12.00% (simple).

¶46

In the result, OA.No.697/2022, stands allowed,

¶47

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

¶48

Rs. 65,37,938/- (Rupees Sixty Five lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Nine

¶49

Hundred Thirty Eight Only) with further interest @12.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly,

¶50

severally & personally, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and

¶51

received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be

¶52

recovered by proceeding against the defendants jointly, severally &

¶53

OA 697/2022

¶54

¶55

personally and also proceeding against their assets including the schedule

¶56

assets. Schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶61

iv) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

¶62

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms

¶63

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

¶64

Rules, 1993.

¶65

[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].

¶66

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶67

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶68

ANNEXURES

¶69

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶70

AW-1: Viswanathan S/o Balasubramanian, Chief Manager, of Applicant

¶71

Bank.

¶72

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶73

Exhibit	Date	List of documents
Nos.
A3	26.03.2014	Loan sanction letter

¶74

OA 697/2022

¶75

¶76

A4	26.03.2014	Specimen signature card executed by 1^stdefendant by its partners 2^ndto 4^thdefendants in favour of applicant
A5	26.03.2014	Common hypothecation agreement executed by 1^st defendant by its partners 2^ndto 4^thdefendants in favour of applicant
A6	26.03.2014	Letter of undertaking re: loans/ advances executed by 1^stdefendant by its partners 2^ndto 4^thdefendants in favour of applicant
A7	26.03.2014	Particulars of hypothecation of machinery executed by 1^stdefendant by its partners 2^ndto 4^thdefendants in favour of applicant
A8	26.03.2014	Guarantee covering letter executed by 2^nddefendant in favour of applicant
A9	26.03.2014	Guarantee agreement executed by 2^nddefendant in favour of applicant
A10	27.07.2017	Partnership letter executed by 2^ndto 4^thdefendants in favour of applicant
A11	27.07.2017	Loan sanction memorandum
A12	27.07.2017	Letter of renewal executed by 1^stdefendant by its partners 2^ndto 4^thdefendants in favour of applicant
A13	27.07.2017	Letter of renewal executed by 1^stdefendant by its partners 2^nddefendant in favour of applicant
A14	27.07.2017	Letter of renewal executed by 1^stdefendant by its partners 3^rddefendant in favour of applicant
A15	27.07.2017	Letter of renewal executed by 1^stdefendant by its partners 4^thdefendant in favour of applicant
A16	27.07.2017	Letter from the guarantor whenever limits are to be renewed executed by 2^nddefendant in favour of applicant
A17	28.08.2018	Loan application form
A18	19.10.2018	Loan sanction memorandum
A19	19.10.2018	Letter of revival executed by 1^stdefendant by its partners 2^ndto 4^thdefendants in favour of applicant
A20	19.10.2018	Letter of revival executed by 1^stdefendant by its partners 2^ndto 4^thdefendants in favour of applicant
A21	19.10.2018	Letter from the guarantor whenever limits are to be renewed executed by 2^nddefendant in favour of applicant
A22	19.10.2018	Guarantee covering letter executed by 3^rddefendant in favour of applicant
A23	19.10.2018	Guarantee agreement executed by 3^rddefendant in favour of applicant
A24	19.10.2018	Guarantee covering letter executed by 3^rddefendant in favour of applicant
A25	19.10.2018	Guarantee agreement executed by 3^rddefendant in favour of applicant

¶77

OA 697/2022

¶78

¶79

A26	08.06.2020	Letter of revival executed by 1^stdefendant by its partners 2^ndto 4^thdefendants in favour of applicant
A27	11.12.2020	Demand notice issued to defendants
A28	--	Returned postal cover of 1^stdefendant
A29	--	Returned postal cover of 2^nddefendant
A30	--	Returned postal cover of 3^rddefendant
A31	--	Returned postal cover of 4^thdefendant
A32	26.08.2021	Legal notice issued to defendants
A33	--	Statement of OCC loan account

¶80

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

¶81

-Nil -

¶82

-Nil -

¶83

Sd/-
(T. RAJESH)
PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Ganesh Bio Energy Inc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Ganesh Bio Energy Inc.

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