Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Ms Prathignacom Hr Solutions Private Ltd.

DRT27 Nov 2025OA/875/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an Original Application for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against a borrower company and its guarantors for bank dues totaling over Rs. 51 lakhs, with reduced interest at 12% simple per annum since the defendants were absent.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate allowed for Rs. 51,35,563.96 with further interest at 12% p.a. (simple) from filing date; proceeds can be realized from assets including hypothecated ones.

Union Bank of India versus Ms Prathignacom Hr… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.875/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Union Bank of India, Avenue Road Branch, No. 3/86, UMFB- Avenue Road Branch, Prabhat Complex, K.G. Road, Bengaluru- 560009, Represented by its Chief Manager and Authorized officer.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

M/s. Prathigna.com HR solutions Private Ltd., A Registered company, Represented by its directors, Varahagiri DVG Srinivas and Smt. Sowjanya Varahagiri, No. 39-40, 1^st Floor, 1^st Street, Govinda Reddy layout, Arakere, B.G. Road, Bengaluru- 560076.

¶10

And also at, Flat #004, Silhouette Enclave, BG Road, SF Compound, Arakere Mico Layout, Bilekahalli, Bengaluru- 560076.

¶11

Sri. Varahagiri DVG Srinivas, S/o Surya Narayana Rao, Aged about 54 years, Director of M/s Prathigna.com HR solutions Private Ltd., Flat #004, Silhouette Enclave, BG road, SF compound, Arakere Mico Layout, Bilekahalli, Bengaluru- 560076.

¶12

Smt. Sowjanya Varahagiri, W/o Sri. Varahagiri DVG Srinivas, Aged about 54 years, Director of M/s Prathigna.com HR solutions Private Ltd., Flat #004, Silhouette Enclave, BG road, SF compound, Arakere Mico Layout, Bilekahalli, Bengaluru- 560076. ...DEFENDANTS

¶13

OA 875/2024

¶14

¶15

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶16

Applicant : Prabhu Rao C B Defendants : Exparte

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

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. 51,35,563.96 (Rupees Fifty One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Three and Paise Ninety Six Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization. The 1^st defendant is the borrower company represented by its directors defendant No. 2 & 3 who are also the guarantor the loans availed from the applicant.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities,

¶22

agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, the defendants failed in complying 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

by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the balance

¶25

OA 875/2024

¶26

¶27

amount due in the account.

¶28

Despite, summons on the defendants, they failed to appear resulting the defendants being set exparte on 28.10.2024.

¶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 A-1 to A-17 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶30

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.

¶31

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶32

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim

¶33

as against the defendants?

¶34

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶35

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶36

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants 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

¶37

and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the

¶38

OA 875/2024

¶39

¶40

defendants and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above

¶41

documents. The claim 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

¶44

the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶45

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶46

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

¶47

In the result, OA.No.875/2024, stands allowed,

¶48

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

¶49

Rs. 51,35,563.96 (Rupees Fifty One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Five

¶50

Hundred Sixty Three and Paise Ninety Six Only) with further interest @12.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from

¶51

the defendants jointly, severally & personally, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the defendants jointly, severally & personally and also proceeding against their assets including the hypothecated assets. Schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶52

OA 875/2024

¶53

¶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, stands disposed of in terms

¶58

of this 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 27^th Day of November, 2025].

¶63

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶64

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶65

ANNEXURES

¶66

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶67

AW-1: Naguri Mohammed Ali, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶68

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶69

Exhibit Nos.	List of documents
A1	True copy of the loan application dated 17.04.2021
A2	True copy of sanction dated 22.0.2021
A3	True copy of hypothecation agreement dated 22.04.2021
A4	True copy of letter of undertaking from the guarantor by defendant No.2 dated 22.04.2021

¶70

OA 875/2024

¶71

¶72

A5	True copy of guarantee letter by the defendant No.2 dated 22.04.2021
A6	True copy of letter of undertaking from the guarantor by defendant No.3 dated 22.04.2021
A7	True copy of guarantee letter by the defendant No.3 dated 22.04.2021
A8	True copy of the letter of directors dated 22.04.2021
A9	True copy of simple agreement dated 22.04.2021
A10	True copy of demand promissory note dated 22.04.2021
A11	True copy of interest agreement dated 22.04.2021
A12	True copy of letter of continuity dated 22.04.2021
A13	True copy of letter of undertaking not to alienate hypothecated goods dated 22.04.2021
A14	Legal notice dated 31.01.2024
A15	Copy of postal receipts, served acknowledgment
A16	Copy of reply notice
A17	Account statement as per running and dummy ledger A/w certificate as per banker’s book evidence Act

¶73

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

¶74

-Nil -

¶75

Sd/-
(T. RAJESH)
PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Ms Prathignacom Hr Solutions Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Ms Prathignacom Hr Solutions Private Ltd.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus Ashok Kumar

Canara Bank versus Amarjit Singh

Ajay Kashyap versus Piramal Capital

Ms Hi Tech Constructions versus State Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Lal Babu Singh

Isaac john gill versus Bank of Baroda