Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Ms Ajith Civil Contractors

DRT27 Nov 2025OA/907/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed an application for a recovery certificate under Section 19(1) of RDB Act. The court found the loan documents admissible and sufficient as evidence was un-rebutted. Recovery is awarded with reduced interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate to be drawn for Rs.35,89,036.78 with interest @8% p.a. (simple), recoverable by sale of schedule property and personally against defendants.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH Hon’ble Presiding Officer

¶4

O.A.No.907 of 2024

¶5

Union Bank of India, SC Road Branch, #71/1, 1^st Floor, Brigade Plaza, Subedar Chetram Road, Near Anand Rao Circle, Bengaluru – 560 001. Represented by its Chief Manager.

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s.Ajith Civil Contractors, Represented by its Proprietor Ajith Kishore, R/at No.445, 14^th Main, Egipura, Bengaluru – 560 047.

¶9

And also at C/o.Prabhudass, Proprietor of M/s.Prabhudass Contractors, Office at #25, 24^th A Cross, Muneshwara Layout, Bengaluru – 560 047.

¶10

And Also at # 7/2, New Municipal No.18, PID No.68-136-18, Egipura Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru – 560 047.

¶11

¶12

And also at Site No.25, Khata No.57, Singena Agrahara Village, Sarajapura Hobli, Muthanallur, Anekal Taluk.

¶13

Sri P.Ajith Kishore, S/o.K.Prabhudass, R/at 9-1, Kamma pallee, Thendabande, Chittor, Andhrapradesh – 517 004.

¶14

And also at C/o.Prabhudass, Proprietor of M/s.Prabhudass Contractors, Office at #25, 24^th A Cross, Muneshwara Layout, Bengaluru – 560 047. And Also at # 7/2, New Municipal No.18, PID No.68-136-18, Egipura Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru – 560 047. And also at Site No.25, Khata No.57, Singena Agrahara Village, Sarajapura Hobli, Muthanallur, Anekal Taluk. … Defendants. Counsel for Applicant : Mr.Prabhu Rao C.B. Defendants : Exparte. …… ORDER

¶15

The Application is filed under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery

¶16

¶17

Certificate for a sum of Rs.35,89,036.78 together with further interest

¶18

@12.55% + 2% overdue interest compounded with monthly rests from 13.02.2024 till the date of realisation together with costs from the defendants jointly and severally and by way of sale of schedule mentioned property.

¶19

The Applicant contends that the defendants approached the applicant for credit facility called as Overdraft General (ODGEN) of Rs.35,00,000/- for the purpose of business and availed the same on 02.09.2022 by execution of necessary loan documents including Demand Promissory Note and Hypothecation agreement. The 2^nd defendant has also mortgaged the schedule mentioned property in favour of applicant by execution of Registered Mortgage Deed bearing No.JGN-1-12221-2022-23 registered on 23.03.2023 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Basavangudi (Jigini).

¶20

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶21

The Applicant further contends that after availing the aforesaid facility, the defendants failed to regularize the said loan. The applicant bank has issued demand notice u/s.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 14.02.2023 demanding the defendants to repay the entire

¶22

¶23

dues along with interest. Despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendants failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant to make the defendants pay back the amount failed, forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶24

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 28.10.2024.

¶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 A12, got the same marked in evidence.

¶26

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶27

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

¶28

against the Defendants?

¶29

ii)If so, to what extent?

¶30

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶31

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the OA claim. Hence the Applicant is found to be entitled for the OA claim. The OA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶32

¶33

Since the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest with default interest and that the facilities are availed for Overdraft the pendent lite and future interest is awarded at simple rate that too at reduced rate of 8% p.a. (simple).

¶34

In view of the above

¶35

i) OA No.907 of 2024 stands allowed.

¶36

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.35,89,036.78 (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousands Thirty Six and Seventy Eight Paise only) together with interest @8% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization from the defendants jointly, severally and personally 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 the schedule mentioned property. The schedule to the OA to be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶37

iii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient to clear the liability, then the Defendants are personally and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against for realization of respective dues.

¶38

¶39

iv) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the Recovery Officer to enable recovery of the dues as per the above terms.

¶40

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

¶41

vi) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27^th day of November, 2025)

¶45

Sd./- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶46

Applicant Witness:

¶47

AW1 –Mrs.Sujatha, Chief Manager, Applicant Bank.

¶48

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶49

Ext.A1 - Loan Application dt.17.08.2022. Ext.A2 - Sanction dt.03.09.2022. Ext.A3 - Demand Promissory Note dt.02.09.2022. Ext.A4 - Hypothecation agreement dt. 02.09.2022. Ext.A5 - Simple Agreement dt.02.09.2022. Ext.A6 - Letter of continuity dt.02.09.2022. Ext.A7 - Letter of undertaking dt.02.09.2022.

¶50

¶51

Ext.A8 - Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dt.23.03.2023. Ext.A9 - Demand Notice dt.14.02.2024. Ext.A10 - Postal Receipts and Track Receipts downloaded from the India Post Website

¶52

Ext.A11 - Statement of Account along with Certificate as per Banker’s Book Evidence Act. Ext.A12 - Sale Deed dt.16.07.2022.

¶53

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶54

NIL

¶55

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants :

¶56

NIL

¶57

Sd./-

¶58

(T. RAJESH)

¶59

PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Ms Ajith Civil Contractors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Ms Ajith Civil Contractors

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

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