Allowed

Indusind Bank Limited v. Shree Kamakshi Motors

DRT30 Oct 2025OA/729/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed under Section 19 of RDB Act. The court found the defendants in default of loans and, due to their absence, admitted evidence uncontroverted. The Recovery Certificate was allowed with reduced interest at 10% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate allowed for Rs. 61,10,234.69 plus interest @ 10% p.a. from filing date until realization.

Indusind Bank Limited versus Shree Kamakshi Motors — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 30^th Day of October, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.729/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Indus Ind Bank Limited, Embassy Heights, Block B, 3^rd Floor, 13 M C Grath Road, Bangalore- 560025.

¶7

Also at: Secunderabad Branch, I-10-72, 3^rd Floor, Ashoka Janardhan Chamers, Begumpet, Hyderabad 500 016.

¶8

…APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

M/s. Shree Kamakshi motors, 27-5-121, Sharab Munishamiah Layout, old Madras Road, Haskote, Bengaluru Rural- 562114.

¶11

Mr. H.S. Pradeep Babu, #269, Sharab Munishamappa Layout, Sharab Munishamappa Badavane, Hoskore, Bengaluru Rural- 562114.

¶12

Mrs. Rashmi Pradeep, #269, Sharab Munishamappa Layout, Sharab Munishamappa Badavane, Hoskore, Bengaluru Rural- 562114.

¶13

...DEFENDANTS

¶14

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶15

Applicant : M/s. Skanda Legal Defendant : Exparte

OA 729/2023

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. 61,10,234.69 (Rupees Sixty One Lakh Ten Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Four and Paise Sixty Nine Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization. The 1^st defendant is a proprietary firm represented by its proprietor the 2^nd defendant herein, the 3^rd defendant is the guarantor.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed channel financing facility of Rs. 100.00 lakhs and Adhoc facility of Rs. 50.00 lakhs which was later enhanced to Rs. 120.00 lakhs and Rs. 60.00 lakhs respectively.

¶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 agreement for hypothecation and agreement of guarantee.

¶22

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, the defendants failed in compliance of the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶23

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal

¶24

OA 729/2023

¶25

¶26

by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

¶27

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 06.08.2024.

¶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-1 to A-10 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 the proof affidavit.

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶31

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants?

¶32

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶33

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶34

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains

¶35

unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put

¶36

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

¶37

availment of the credit facilities as stated in the OA, creation of

¶38

OA 729/2023

¶39

¶40

hypothecation 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 are also proved by the above documents. The claim

¶41

of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶45

availed for Business purpose and also that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal is of the view that the

¶46

OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 10.00% (simple).

¶47

In the result, OA.No.729/2023, stands allowed,

¶48

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

¶49

61,10,234.69 (Rupees Sixty One Lakh Ten Thousand Two Hundred Thirty

¶50

Four and Paise Sixty Nine Only) with further interest @ 10.00 % p.a.(simple), from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally & personally after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed to recover the same by proceeding against the defendants jointly, severally & personally and their assets including the hypothecated assets.

¶51

OA 729/2023

¶52

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

iv) Interim application pending, if any, are disposed of with this

¶58

Final Order.

¶59

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

¶60

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

¶61

Rules, 1993.

¶62

[Dictated to the Stenographer (AJ), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 30^th day of October, 2025].

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

(T. RAJESH)

¶65

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶66

ANNEXURES

¶67

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶68

AW-1: Tadimarri Chandrasekar Reddy S/o. Tadimarri Narayan Reddy,

¶69

Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶70

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶71

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	07.06.2016	Sanction letter of Rs. 100.00 lakhs
A2	14.06.2016	Agreement of hypothecation for current assets

¶72

OA 729/2023

¶73

¶74

A3	14.06.2016	Letter of guarantee
A4	06.12.2018	Renewal cum enhancement of sanction credit limits of Rs. 180 lakhs
A5	13.12.2018	Supplementary hypothecation agreement
A6	13.12.2018	Supplementary letter of guarantee
A7	27.12.2021	Demand cum loan recall notice
A8	--	Statement of account of A/c No. 813014021176
A9	--	Statement of accounts of A/c No. 890000016350
A10	12.10.2022	Certificate under bankers book of evidence Act

¶75

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

¶76

-Nil -

¶77

-Nil -

¶78

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Indusind Bank Limited v. Shree Kamakshi Motors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indusind Bank Limited v. Shree Kamakshi Motors

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Kamaljit Singh

Ms General Trading Company versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Piara Singh

Ms R S Belvedere versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Ms Parwati Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. and others versus Bank of Baroda

Standard Chartered Bank versus M/s Nanma Marketing Pvt. Ltd.