Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Manjushree Enterprises

DRT28 Oct 2025OA/933/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an OA under Section 19 of RDB Act for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against two defendants for an agricultural term loan default. Interest was reduced to 6% p.a. The bank can recover the amount jointly, severally, and personally against defendants and schedule properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate for Rs. 22,17,724/- with 6% p.a. simple interest; recovery proceeds against schedule properties and defendants jointly, severally, and personally.

Union Bank of India versus Manjushree Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 28^th Day of October, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.933/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Channapatna Branch, No.2191/4-10. B.M. Road, Kuvempunagar, Channapatna-562160 By its Principal Officer and Senior Manager Sharon C Nelson … APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

M/s. Manjushree Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietor H. Manjunath S/o. Hanumaiah Aged about 58 years

¶9

G.V. Girija W/o. H. Majunath, Aged about 54 years

¶10

Both are residing at: No.118, Yelekere, Channapatna Town and Taluk, Ramanagara District-562160 ...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : Mrs. M.R. Rajini, Defendants : Exparte

OA. No.933/2024

: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.22,17,724/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakh Seventeen Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Four only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶17

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed the Agricultural Term loan of Rs.10,00,000/- on 30.09.2013 to develop cattle and poultry feed shop dealership.

¶18

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

¶19

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, 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.

¶20

OA. No.933/2024

¶21

¶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 accounts.

¶23

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 04.11.2024.

¶24

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 A19 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶25

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.

¶26

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶27

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶28

claim as against the defendants?

¶29

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶30

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶31

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶32

remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and

¶33

OA. No.933/2024

¶34

¶35

undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of credit facility 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.

¶36

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.

¶37

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility 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% p.a.(simple).

¶38

In the result, OA.No.933/2024 stands allowed,

¶39

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶40

of Rs.22,17,724/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakh Seventeen Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Four only) with further interest of

¶41

OA. No.933/2024

¶42

¶43

6.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization

¶44

from the defendants, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed

¶45

the same to be recovered by proceeding against defendants jointly, severally and personally and also by proceeding against the schedule properties. The schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶46

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants

¶47

jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable

¶48

for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶49

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶53

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

¶54

with this Final Order.

¶55

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶56

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

¶57

OA. No.933/2024

¶58

¶59

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶60

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 28^th Day of October 2025].

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶63

ANNEXURES

¶64

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶65

AW-1: Mr. Sharon C Nelson, Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

¶66

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶67

Annexure	Particulars	Date
A1	Loan application	30.09.2013
A2	Sanction letter	30.09.2013
A3	Letter of Proprietorship	30.09.2013
A4	Demand Promissory Note	30.09.2013
A5	Take Delivery Letter to DPN	30.09.2013
A6	Agreement for Term loans	30.09.2013
A7	Common Deed of Hypothecation of movables/Assets/Debts	30.09.2013
A8	Guarantee Agreement	30.09.2013
A9	Demand Promissory Note	20.09.2016
A10	Take Delivery Letter to DPN	20.09.2016
A11	Demand Promissory Note	20.06.2019
A12	Take Delivery Letter to DPN	20.06.2019
A13	Composite Debit Balance Confirmation	31.03.2021
A14	Simple Mortgage	30.09.2013
A15	Sale Deed	26.07.2001
A16	Legal notice	05.01.2024

¶68

OA. No.933/2024

¶69

¶70

A17	Postal acknowledgment of D1	---
A18	Postal acknowledgment of D2	---
	Statement of A/c showing the
A19	balance outstanding in the loan A/c of the defendant

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Manjushree Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Manjushree Enterprises

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 versus Aadinath Plastics

Canara Bank versus Harjit Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Sh. Sukhraj Singh

Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. versus Krishna Pratap Singh Chandel

Hdfc Bank versus Sunita Tayal

Sh Khusinder Singh versus Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank