Allowed

Union Bank of India v. lingaraju

DRT11 Nov 2025OA/906/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application under Section 19 of RDB Act 1993, the Tribunal allowed the bank to recover the principal amount of Rs.25,62,811.10 with interest at 6% p.a. (simple) from jointly, severally liable defendants and schedule properties, as the defendants were absent.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.25,62,811.10 with 6% simple interest from filing date, against defendants jointly/severally and schedule properties.

Union Bank of India versus lingaraju — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 11^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.906/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Union Bank of India Branch at Tiptur Branch, SNR Buildign, B.H. Road, Tiptur – 572201 Rep. by its Senior Manager

¶7

… APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Lingaraju M S/o. Mahalingaiah Aged about 50 years R/at. #9/140, 3^rd Cross Vinayak Nilaya, Shankarappa layout, Tiptur-572201, Tumkur

¶10

Sri. Prakash M K S/o. M. G. Kumaraswamy Aged about 59 years R/at. Madhihalli K R Extension, Tiptur Rural – 572201

¶11

...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Sri. Prabhu Rao C B Defendant No.1 : Sri. M. Vinaya Keerthy Defendant No.2 : Exparte

OA. No.906/2024

:FINAL ORDER:

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.25,62,811.10/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Eleven and Ten Paisa only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed Agricultural Over Draft Short credit limit of Rs.16,77,000/- and Term loan of Rs.8,00,000/-.

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facilities, the defendants executed necessary loan documents apart from the creation of security interest by way of mortgage over the Schedule properties.

¶20

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

¶21

OA. No.906/2024

¶22

¶23

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the accounts.

¶24

Despite, the defendant No.1 entered appearance and filed vakalath, he failed to file written statement within stipulated time and hence, the chance for filing written statement closed and the summons taken out on defendant No.2, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant No.2 being set exparte on 02.07.2025.

¶25

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A16 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶26

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.

¶27

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶28

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

¶29

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶30

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶31

OA. No.906/2024

¶32

¶33

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶34

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 security interest 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 of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶35

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶36

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶37

was availed for agriculture 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 of 6.00%

¶38

p.a.(simple).

¶39

OA. No.906/2024

¶40

13. In the result, OA.No.541/2024 stands allowed,

¶41

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶42

of Rs.25,62,811.10/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Eleven and Ten Paisa only) with further interest of 6.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from the defendants, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against defendants jointly, severally and personally and also by proceeding against the schedule properties. The schedule properties to the OA be the schedule properties to the Recovery Certificate.

¶43

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶44

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

¶45

OA. No.906/2024

¶46

¶47

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

¶48

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶49

v) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of

¶50

with this Final Order.

¶51

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶52

in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶53

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 11^th Day of November 2025].

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶56

ANNEXURES

¶57

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶58

AW-1: Mr. Anjaneya Reddy K S, Senior Manager of the applicant

¶59

bank.

¶60

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶61

Annexure	Particulars
A1	Loan Application Dated 01.10.2020
A2	Sanction dated 13.10.2020
A3	Letter of undertaking dated 13.10.2020
A4	Hypothecation Agreement dated 13.10.2020

¶62

OA. No.906/2024

¶63

¶64

A5	Deed of guarantee dated 13.10.2020
A6	Letter of Continuity dated 13.10.2020
A7	Simple Agreement dated 13.10.2020
A8	Demand Promissory Note dated 13.10.2020
A9	Sanction dated 13.10.2020
A10	Declaration / undertaking dated 13.10.2020
A11	Hypothecation Agreement dated 13.10.2020
A12	Deed of Guarantee dated 13.10.2020
A13	Letter of Continuity dated 13.10.2020
A14	Simple Agreement dated 13.10.2020
A15	Demand promissory note dated 13.10.2020
A16	Mortgage deed dated 06.10.2020
A17	Legal notices dated 20.06.2023
A18	Legal notice dated 20.06.2023
A19	Postal receipts and unserved covers
A20	Statement of account bearing loan account No.560381004583371
A21	Statement of account bearing loan account No.560941000306284 along with certificate as per Banker’s Book Evidence Act

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. lingaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. lingaraju

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

Md Danish Sultan versus Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)

Smt S Meena versus State Bank of India

Icici Bank Limited versus Jarnail Singh

Idbi Bank versus Mr. Ashish Sharma

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Sukwhinder Kaur

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Kala Singh