Allowed

Canara Bank v. Shubham Irrigation System

DRT19 Sept 2025OA/757/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by Canara Bank for a recovery certificate of Rs.57,37,991.06 plus interest. The court found the defendant's case unrebutted due to ex parte status, confirmed the debt and default, and granted recovery of the principal sum with reduced interest at 12% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate granted for Rs.57,37,991.06 with interest at 12% p.a. Simple, recoverable from the proprietor and defendant's assets including schedule property.

Canara Bank versus Shubham Irrigation System — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 19^th Day of September, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.757/2024

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank Branch Office at: Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

M/s Shubam Irrigation System Rep by its Proprietor Smt. Archana T G W/o Sri. Chethan A Factory at: No.415/66/3A Kempalinganahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli-562123 Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural Taluk

¶9

...DEFENDANTS

¶10

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶11

Applicant : JN Legal Defendants : Exparte

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been

¶14

filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act

¶15

1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for

¶16

Rs.57,37,991.06 (Rupees fifty seven lakh thirty seven thousand

¶17

¶18

OA 757-2024

¶19

nine hundred ninety one and paisa six only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant a Proprietorship concern through its Propeirtor had who availed the following credit facilities from the applicant bank:-

¶21

I. Term Loan of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only),

¶22

II. Overdraft loan limit of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only),

¶23

III. Overdraft Loan limit of Rs.29,50,000/- (Rupees twenty nine lakh fifty thousand Only)

¶24

IV. Working Capital Loan limit of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh only)

¶25

V. Term Loan Limit of Rs.5,75,000/- (Rupees five lakh seventy five thousand only)

¶26

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with letters of undertaking, agreement cum deed of hypothecation, letters of pronote and letters of revival in favor of the applicant bank.

¶27

¶28

OA 757-2024

¶29

It is further contended that, the defendant despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, failed in complying the same, resulting in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶30

Further, the Appellant Bank sold the Hypothecated Machinery for the amount of Rs.5,25,000/- (Rupees five lakh twenty five thousand only) and the sale proceedings were adjusted to the Loan account.

¶31

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.

¶32

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 24.01.2025.

¶33

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. List of documents are appended here under.

¶34

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered

¶35

the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary

¶36

OA 757-2024

¶37

¶38

evidence and the proof affidavit.

¶39

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶40

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

¶41

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶42

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶43

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

¶44

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this

¶45

Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence

¶46

this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶47

OA 757-2024

¶48

¶49

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶50

are availed by defendant 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 @12% p.a.(Simple).

¶51

In the result, OA.No.757/2024, stands allowed,

¶52

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶53

sum of Rs.57,37,991.06 (Rupees fifty seven lakh thirty seven thousand nine hundred ninety one and paisa six only) with further interest @12% p.a. (Simple),

¶54

from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendant personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same

¶55

to be recovered by proceedings against the proprietor personally and the assets of the defendants including the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶56

ii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶57

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

¶58

OA 757-2024

¶59

¶60

receipt of the order.

¶61

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

¶62

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶63

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

¶64

in terms of this final order.

¶65

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶66

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

¶67

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶68

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by

¶69

me in the Open Court, this the 19^th day of September, 2025].

¶70

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶71

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶72

ANNEXURES

¶73

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶74

AW-1: Amogh. M. Ganagi, Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶75

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶76

The documents are appended in this order.

¶77

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

¶78

Sd/

¶79

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Shubham Irrigation System

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Shubham Irrigation System

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

Abbas Ca versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sachin Kumar Kaushal

Canara Bank versus M/S Avtar Bag Factory

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Hardik

Ms Habib Agro Industries Rep by Its Partners and Legal Heir of Late Sri Habib Khan and Others versus the Authorised Officer Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

Ms Habib Agro Industries Rep by Its Industries Rep by Its Partner and Legal Heirs of Late Sri Habib Khan and Others versus the Authorised Officer Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.