Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Hallapa R

DRT28 Nov 2025OA/966/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-II, Bengaluru allowed an Original Application for a recovery certificate. The Tribunal held the applicant's evidence sufficient despite defendants appearing ex parte, allowing recovery with reduced interest of 6% p.a. simple.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate to be drawn for Rs. 44,98,666/- plus 6% p.a. simple interest till realization from defendants jointly/severally personally; executable against schedule properties.

Union Bank of India versus Hallapa R — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 28^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.966/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Union Bank of India Hebbalu Branch #Belur Halebeedu Road Hebbalu Belur Taluk and Dist. Hassan Karnataka – 573 121

¶7

Represented by its Senior Manager

¶8

Sri. Ravikumar …APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Sri. Hallapa R S/o. Rudregowda Aged about 60 years R/o. Kyathlapura Village, Halebeedu Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan, Karnataka – 573 115

¶11

Sri. Lohith P H S/o. Halappa Aged about 38 years R/o. Kyathlapura Village, Halebeedu Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan, Karnataka – 573 116 ...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : VS Associates Defendants : Ex parte

OA-966/2024

FINAL ORDER

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking for issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 44,98,666/- (Rupees Forty Four Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Six Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants are availed an agricultural loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) on 11.04.2014.

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loan, the defendants executed the necessary loan document along with simple mortgage deed.

¶20

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 accounts as NPA.

¶21

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.

¶22

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 07.11.2024.

¶23

OA-966/2024

¶24

¶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 A-1 to A-18 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

¶29

claim as against the defendants?

¶30

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained ex parte. 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 facility as stated in the OA, creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount

¶33

due are also proved by the above document. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶34

OA-966/2024

¶35

¶36

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

¶37

find both these issues are in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶38

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility are availed for Agricultural purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal is the view that the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

¶39

In the result, OA.No.966/2024 stands allowed,

¶40

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 44,98,666/- (Rupees Forty Four Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Six Only) with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the 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 properties. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶41

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 assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶42

OA-966/2024

¶43

¶44

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶45

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

¶46

receipt of the order.

¶47

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

¶48

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶49

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

¶50

terms of this final order.

¶51

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶52

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

¶53

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶54

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

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶57

ANNEXURES

¶58

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶59

AW-1: M Ravikumar, S/o. Muthukaruppan, Senior Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶60

OA-966/2024

¶61

¶62

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶63

Exhibit	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	Loan application dated 10.04.2014
A2	Sanction letter dated 11.04.2014
A3	Simple mortgage deed dated 09.04.2014
A4	Memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 12.04.2014
A5	Demand promissory note dated 12.04.2014
A6	Take delivery note dated 12.04.2014
A7	Common deed of hypothecated crops dated 12.04.2014
A8	Letter of undertaking dated 12.04.2014
A9	Agreement for covering hypothecated crops dated 12.04.2014
A10	Renewal application dated 29.04.2015
A11	Acknowledgment of debts dated 15.03.2017
A12	Advice for rephasement dated 22.06.2018
A13	Acknowledgement of debts dated 09.01.2020
A14	Advice for rephasement dated 08.02.2021
A15	Simple debit balance confirmation dated 01.03.2023
A16	Re-call notice dated 22.06.2021
A17	Re-call notice dated 20.04.2023
A18	True extract of statement of account pertaining to the defendants aforesaid loan account no. 560961000122727

¶64

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

-Nil -

-Nil -

Sd/-

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Hallapa R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Hallapa R

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

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Vasantha Mary

Canara Bank versus Girithimappa G D

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus M/S Rapido Fashions

Ms Sandhya Granites versus Indian Overseas Bank

Ms Basaveshwara Rice Industries versus State Bank of India

Garudachala Properties Private Limited versus Capri Global Capital Limited