Allowed

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank v. Rajendra Blakrishna Dalal

DRT26 Sept 2025OA/900/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application under the RDB Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank to issue a Recovery Certificate. The Tribunal reduced the interest rate to 11% per annum for business purposes while permitting recovery of the principal from the defendant and his assets.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 35,56,645/- with interest at 11% p.a. to be recovered from the defendant and his assets.

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank versus Rajendra… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 26^th Day of September, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.900/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Karnataka Grameena Bank, Belgaum Main Branch, DPD Code: 2202, Shivamale Building, Khadak Galli, Belgaum – 591 108. Represented by its Chief Manager, Sri. Parameshwar Mahabaleshwara Gadde, S/o Sri Mahabaleshwar, Aged about 42 years.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Rajendra Balakrishna Dalal, S/o Balakrishna, Aged about 61 years, Prop: M/s. Unique Industries, Having its Office at: 203, 2^nd Floor, Flat No- SF-3, Mahalaxmi Residency, Last Bus Stop, Anagol, Angagol, Belgavi- 590006.

¶10

...DEFENDANT

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

Applicant Defendant

: Vijay S : Exparte

FINAL ORDER

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under

¶16

section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance

¶17

OA 900/2023

¶18

¶19

of Recovery Certificate against the defendant for Rs. 35,56,645/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Five Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant availed the following loans from the applicant bank:-

¶21

Term loan facility of Rs. 15,10,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Ten Thousand Only),

¶22

Covid loan facility of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lakh Only), and

¶23

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

¶24

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendant executed the necessary loan documents along with Composite hypothecation agreement.

¶25

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

¶26

agreeing to service the loan amount promptly and regularly, the defendant failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶27

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal

¶28

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

¶29

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear,

¶30

OA 900/2023

¶31

¶32

resulting the defendant being set exparte on 07.02.2025.

¶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-1 to A-30 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶34

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.

¶35

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶36

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

¶37

as against the defendant?

¶38

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶39

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶40

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

¶41

forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of credit facilities as stated in the OA, creation of hypothecation and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendant

¶42

and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above documents.

¶43

The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶44

OA 900/2023

¶45

¶46

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

¶47

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are availed for Business purpose and Covid emergency 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 @ 11.00% (simple).

¶48

In the result, OA.No.900/2023, stands allowed,

¶49

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 35,56,645/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Five Only) with further interest @11.00 % p.a.(simple) 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 to be recovered by proceeding against the defendant personally and his assets including the hypothecated assets. Schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶50

ii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶51

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

¶52

OA 900/2023

¶53

¶54

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶55

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

¶56

of this final order.

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

Rules, 1993.

¶60

[Dictated to the Stenographer (AJ), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 26^th day of September, 2025].

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

(T. RAJESH)

¶63

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶64

ANNEXURES

¶65

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶66

AW-1: Shrirang Mhaisalkar S/o Aravindrao M, Branch Manager, of Applicant

¶67

Bank.

¶68

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶69

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
		I-Term loan (A/c No. 89117550826)
A1	30.09.2005	Government notification for amalgamation
A2	04.12.2019	Loan application
A3	04.12.2019	Sanction letter
A4	04.12.2019	Consideration receipt for Rs. 15,10,000/- executed defendant in favour of the applicant bank	by
A5	04.12.2019	Composite hypothecation agreement executed defendant in favour of the applicant bank	by
A6	17.01.2022	Legal Notice issued by the applicant bank to defendant	the
A7	--	Returned postal cover
A8	09.01.2023	Registered notice issued by applicant bank
A9	26.07.2022	Legal notice issued by the applicant bank to defendant	the

¶70

OA 900/2023

¶71

A10	--	Retuned postal cover
A11	--	Statement of account
		II-Covid loan (A/c No. 89124279151)
A12	21.09.2020	Loan application
A13	21.09.2020	Loan sanction letter
A14	21.09.2020	Consideration receipt for Rs. 4,00,000/- executed by defendant in favour of the applicant bank
A15	21.09.2020	Composite hypothecation agreement executed by defendant in favour of the applicant bank
A16	26.07.2022	Legal notice issued by the applicant bank to the defendant
A17	--	Returned postal cover
A18	--	Statement of account
		III- Overdraft facility (A/c No. 89119026989)
A19	08.05.2020	Loan application
A20	08.05.2020	Loan sanction letter
A21	08.05.2020	On demand promissory note executed by defendant in favour of the applicant bank for Rs. 10,00,000/-
A22	08.05.2020	Request for overdraft facility executed by defendant in favour of the applicant bank
A23	08.05.2020	Composite hypothecation agreement executed by defendant in favour of the applicant bank
A24	30.10.2021	Application for renewal of overdraft facility submitted by the defendant
A25	30.10.2021	Request for overdraft facility executed by defendant
A26	30.10.2021	On demand promissory note executed by defendant in favour of the applicant bank
A27	06.11.2021	Renewal letter executed by defendant in favour of the applicant bank
A28	26.07.2022	Legal notice issued by the applicant bank to the defendant
A29	--	Returned postal cover
A30	--	Statement of account

¶72

Witness Examined for the Defendant:

¶73

-Nil -

¶74

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant:

¶75

-Nil -

¶76

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶77

PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank v. Rajendra Blakrishna Dalal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank v. Rajendra Blakrishna Dalal

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

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus Nagamma

Bank of Baroda versus Smt Vidyashri Srivasthav

Union Bank of India versus Ms Parexcell Softsource Pvt. Ltd.

Karur Vysya Bank versus Vijaya Sekhar Kasala

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Boralinge Gowda Dead by Lrs Smt Sharadamma

State Bank of India versus Raghavendra