Allowed

Bank of India v. Amruth Hardware and Paints

DRT22 Aug 2025OA/88/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank of India applied for a recovery certificate against a proprietorship firm and its proprietor for a loan default. The defendants appeared in absentia. The Tribunal found the loan documents and default evidence uncontroverted and allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.23,08,208 with further interest at 9.90% p.a. and recovery from personal assets.

Bank of India versus Amruth Hardware and Paints — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 22^ND Day of August, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA.No.88/2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Bank of India Branch Office at Koramangala Branch, No.67, 1^st floor, Jyothi Nivas College Road, 5^th Block, Industrial Layout, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560095

¶8

…APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

M/s. Amruth Hardware & Paints Represented by its Proprietor Mr. Lunaram Dewasi No.167, Near Central Jail, Naganathapura, Rayasandra Circle, E-city post, Bengaluru- 560100

¶11

Mr. Lunaram Dewasi S/o Mr. Junararamji Proprietor of M/s Amruth Hardware & Paints No. 167, Near Central Jail, Naganathapura, Rayasandra Circle, E-city post, Bengaluru- 560100

¶12

Also At: Balada, Balada Post, Jaitaran Taluk, Pali District, Rajasthan State- 306706

...DEFENDANTS

OA 88/2023

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶17

Applicant : K Raveendran 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 for Rs.23,08,208/- (Rupees twenty three lakh eight thousand two hundred and eight 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 No.1 is a Proprietorship firm and defendant No.2 is its Proprietor. The defendant No.1 availed the Term loan credit facilities of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five Lakh only) from the applicant bank.

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with on demand Promissory Note, hypothecation cum loan agreement, bearer letter and installment letter in favor of the applicant bank.

¶22

It is further contended that, the defendants despite

¶23

OA 88/2023

¶24

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 20.08.2024.

¶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-3 to A-20 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

¶32

OA 88/2023

¶33

¶34

OA 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 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 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 are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶39

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

¶40

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶41

are availed by defendant for business purpose, in view of the rate of interest as claimed need not be reduced. However as the

¶42

OA 88/2023

¶43

¶44

OA Claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate

¶45

of interest and also by applying default interest, the prayer for monthly rest and future penal interest are declined.

¶46

13. In the result, OA.No.88/2023, stands allowed,

¶47

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶48

sum of Rs.23,08,208/- (Rupees twenty three lakh eight thousand two hundred and eight only) with further interest @ 9.90% p.a. (Simple),

¶49

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

¶50

to be recovered by proceedings against the assets of the defendants personally against 2^nd defendant and the schedule movable property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶51

ii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

OA 88/2023

¶55

¶56

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶57

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

¶58

in terms of this final order.

¶59

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶60

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

¶61

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶62

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

¶63

me in the Open Court, this the 22^ND day of August, 2025].

¶64

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶65

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶66

ANNEXURES

¶67

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶68

AW-1: Mrs. Manaswinee Moharana, Senior Manager, of Applicant

¶69

Bank.

¶70

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶71

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	--	Applicant Evidence
A2	--	List of Documents.
A3	20.10.2020	Application form of Micro & Small Enterprises submitted by defendants
A4	22.10.2020	Sanction letter along with Annexure
A5	22.10.2020	On demand promissory note
A6	22.10.2020	Agreement L-516 for TL Loan
A7	22.10.2020	Hypothecation cum Loan Agreement for TL Loan
A8	22.10.2020	Bearer Letter in form L-435 for TL loan

¶72

OA 88/2023

¶73

¶74

A9	22.10.2020	Installment letter in form L-440 for TL Loan
A10	22.10.2020	Format for RBLR Agreement
A11	22.10.2020	Agreement
A12	22.10.2020	Compliance of Bank’s guidelines undertaking letter/ agreement from the borrower
A13	22.10.2020	Credit facilities sanctioned to me/us from the borrower
A14	22.10.2020	Credit facilities to me/ us from the borrower
A15	22.10.2020	Text of undertaking with consent clause for disclosure of information of credit facilities from the borrower
A16 & A17	23.11.2022	Legal Notice of postal receipt
A18 & A19		Returned Postal Acknowledgement
A20		Statement of account in respect of Term Loan A/c No.847973410000014 with interest calculation sheet

¶75

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

¶76

-Nil -

¶77

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of India v. Amruth Hardware and Paints

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Amruth Hardware and Paints

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

Leelamma C S versus Federal Bank

Ajitha Reji versus Federal Bank

State Bank of India versus M/S Tirupati Associates, a Proprietary Concern Acting through Its Proprietor Shri Namdeo S/O Vishwanath Kadu

Smt Leelavathi versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus Mahadevu

Idbi Bank versus Dinesh M G