Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Chaman Sab

DRT28 Oct 2025OA/936/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed under Section 19 RDB Act for issuance of Recovery Certificate against a defaulting agricultural loan borrower. The court reduced interest to 6% simple and authorized recovery from personal and schedule properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 21,48,686/- with 6% simple interest, enforceable against schedule and personal assets.

Union Bank of India versus Chaman Sab — Money Laundering | 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.936/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Union Bank of India. (erstwhile Corporation Bank), Ripponpet Branch, Ripponpet- 577426, Hosanagara Taluk, Shivamogga Dist, Represented by its Principal Officer and manager, Sri. Purushotham K, S/o Kappanna K, Aged about 37 years.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Chaman Sab, S/o Late Basha Sab, Aged about 62 years, Galibailu, Aluvalli Village, Kenchanala Post, Kerehalli Hobli, Hosanagara Taluk, Shivamogga Dist. ...DEFENDANT

¶10

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶11

Applicant : M R Rajini Defendant : Exparte

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance

¶14

of Recovery Certificate against the defendant for Rs. 21,48,686/- (Rupees

¶15

OA 936/2024

¶16

¶17

Twenty One Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Eight Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant availed the following credit facilities from the applicant bank:

¶19

Agriculture overdraft of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Only) and

¶20

Agricultural term loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Only).

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶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 account.

¶24

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

¶25

resulting the defendant being set exparte on 04.11.2024.

¶26

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof

¶27

OA 936/2024

¶28

¶29

Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-28 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶30

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.

¶31

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶32

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

¶33

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

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 forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of the 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.

¶36

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal

¶37

OA 936/2024

¶38

¶39

find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of

¶40

the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶41

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶42

availed for Agriculture purpose and also that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal is of the view that the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

¶43

In the result, OA.No.936/2024, stands allowed,

¶44

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 21,48,686/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Eight Only) with further interest @ 6.00 % p.a.(simple), from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendant personally after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed to recover the same by proceeding against the schedule Property. Schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶45

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

¶46

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings which

¶47

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

OA 936/2024

order.

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

¶52

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶53

v) Interim application pending, if any, are disposed of with this

¶54

Final Order.

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

Rules, 1993.

¶58

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

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶63

AW-1: Mittapelly Karthik S/o Mittapelli Narayanareddy, Manager, of

¶64

Applicant Bank.

¶65

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶66

Exhibit	Particulars of Documents	Date
Nos.
A1	Loan application	23.09.2016
A2	Sanction letter	23.09.2016
A3	Demand promissory note	23.09.2016
A4	Take delivery letter to DPN	23.09.2016
A5	Hypothecation agreement	23.09.2016
A6	Acknowledgement debt/ liability by the borrower	06.02.2019
A7	Advice of rephasing repayment schedule	28.12.2020

¶67

OA 936/2024

¶68

¶69

A8	Letter requesting conversion of crop loan to term loan	28.12.2020
A9	Amendment agreement to rephase repayment schedule of crop loan	28.12.2020
A10	Composite debit balance confirmation	28.12.2020
A11	Simple debit balance confirmation	20.04.2022
A12	Loan application	26.09.2016
A13	Sanction letter	26.09.2016
A14	Agreement for term loans	26.09.2016
A15	Common deed of hypothecation for agricultural loans	26.09.2016
A16	Acknowledgement of debt/ liability by the borrower	06.02.2019
A17	Composite debit balance confirmation	10.01.2022
A18	Simple debit balance confirmation	20.04.2022
A19	Simple mortgage	22.09.2016
A20	RTC for the period 2016-17 for Sy. No. 43	--
A21	RTC for the period 2016-17 for Sy. No.59/P1	--
A22	RTC for the period 2016-17 for Sy. No. 61/1	--
A23	RTC for the period 2016-17 for Sy. No. 65	--
A24	Legal notice	29.12.2023
A25	Postal receipt	--
A26	Postal acknowledgement	--
A27	Statement showing the balance outstanding in the loan A/c No. 560381000808801 of the defendant	29.11.2023
A28	Statement showing the balance outstanding in the loan A/c No. 560941000097938	29.11.2023

¶70

Witness Examined for the Defendant: List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant:

¶71

-Nil -

¶72

-Nil -

¶73

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Chaman Sab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Chaman Sab

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