Allowed

Uco Bank v. Mariyappa

DRT31 Dec 2025OA/912/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 19 RDB Act for a recovery certificate, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's claim of Rs. 56.61 lakh against joint and several defendants who failed to appear. The court awarded principal sum with interest at 6% p.a. pending recovery certificate transfer.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate to the applicant for Rs. 56,61,199/- with further interest at 6% p.a. (Simple) from date of filing till realization from the respondents jointly, severally and persona

Uco Bank versus Mariyappa — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 31^th Day of December, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.912/2023

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

UCO Bank No.238/35, 9^th Main, 3^rd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560011 …APPLICANT

¶6

AND:

¶7

Sri. Mariyappa SN S/o. Sri Narasaiah R/at: No.20, Shettihali Main Road, Shettihalli Village, Bangalore- 560015

¶8

Smt. Pavithra VH W/o. Sri. Mariyappa S N R/at: No.20, Shettihali Main Road, Shettihalli Village, Bangalore- 560015

¶9

...DEFENDANTS

¶10

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶11

Applicant : KR Parshuram MRP Legals Defendants : Exparte

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been

¶14

filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act

¶15

1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for

¶16

¶17

OA 912-2023

¶18

Rs.56,61,199/- (Rupees fifty six lakh sixty one thousand one hundred ninety nine only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants availed the Home loan credit facilities of Rs.1,75,00,000-/ (Rupees one crore seventy five lakhs only) from the applicant bank.

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with Sanction letter and agreement form in favor of the applicant bank.

¶21

It is further contended that, the defendants despite 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. It is also stated that the mortgaged property was sold under the provisions of SARFAESI Act as per e-auction dated 05.09.2020 for a sum of Rs.70,50,000/- and sale certificate dated 03.11.2020.

¶22

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.

¶23

¶24

OA 912-2023

¶25

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 13.11.2024.

¶26

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-6 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

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.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶30

OA claim as against the defendants?

¶31

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶32

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶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

¶35

admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of credit

¶36

OA 912-2023

¶37

¶38

facilities as stated in the OA, claimed by the applicant bank and

¶39

the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim as the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶40

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this

¶41

Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence

¶42

this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶43

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶44

are availed against the security of residential property and the

¶45

security is already sold under SARFAESI proceedings, this Tribunal in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest

¶46

@6 p.a. (Simple).

¶47

In the result, OA.No.912/2023 stands allowed,

¶48

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶49

sum of Rs.56,61,199/- (Rupees fifty six lakh sixty one thousand

¶50

one hundred ninety nine only) with further interest @6% p.a. (Simple),

¶51

from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants

¶52

OA 912-2023

¶53

¶54

jointly severally and personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA.

¶55

(ii) In the event of failure of the defendants to pay the aforesaid amount, the bank is at liberty to proceed against the defendants jointly severally and personally and their other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan account.

¶56

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶60

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

¶61

in terms of this final order.

¶62

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶63

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

¶64

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶65

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 31^th day of December, 2025].

¶66

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA 912-2023

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶71

AW-1: Chandra Shekar Singh, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶72

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶73

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	--	Copy of term loan application under UCO Home loan scheme
A2	19.03.2016	Copy of the sanction letter
A3	19.03.2016	Copy of the loan agreement in form AHL-6 executed by D1 & 2.
A4	07.02.2022	Copy of sale certificate
A5 & 6		Copy of statement of account with certificate

¶74

Witness Examined for the Defendant:

¶75

-Nil -

¶76

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant:

¶77

-Nil -

¶78

(T. RAJESH)

¶79

PRESIDING OFFICER

Uco Bank v. Mariyappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Mariyappa

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

Idbi Bank versus Sri.Ramesh. B. Gowda

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Ramraj Grewal

Canara Bank versus Mr. Bhanu Tiwari

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Sri.Bheemaraya. N. Bhosale

Mrs Praveena Pattanashetti versus Union Bank of India

Mr Mohammad Ali Saifuddin Navalgund versus Idbi Bank