Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Shri J S Uday Kumar Shetty

DRT28 Nov 2025OA/977/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal heard an Original Application filed by Bank of Baroda seeking a Recovery Certificate against a defaulting borrower. The borrower failed to appear. The Tribunal found for the applicant, allowing the claim but reducing the interest rate to 10% per annum (simple) and directing the issuance of a Recovery Certificate executable against the borrower and hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate allowed for aggregate sum of Rs. 26,24,192.54 with interest @ 10% p.a. (simple). Cost of proceedings awarded to applicant.

Bank of Baroda versus Shri J S Uday Kumar Shetty — 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.977/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Bank of Baroda, Brahmavar Branch, Holy Family Complex, PB No. 21, Brahmavar, Udupi District, Karnataka 576213, Through its Chief Manager, Mr. Bharath H V

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

J S Uday Kumar Shetty, S/o Shivaram Shetty, Aged about 54 years, R/o H.R.V. Nilaya, Jansale Post, Siddapura, Kundapur Taluk, Udupi Dist.

¶10

...DEFENDANT

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : V S Associates Defendant : Exparte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under

¶15

section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendant for Rs. 26,24,192.54/(Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred Ninety Two

¶16

and Paise Fifty Four Only) with further interest thereon from the date of

¶17

OA 977/2023

¶18

¶19

filing the Application till realization.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant availed Rs. 20,90,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Ninety Thousand Only) under prime minister’s employment generation programme and Rs. 10 lakhs under CGTMSE coverage and restructured funded interest term loan of Rs. 66,019/- (Rupees Sixty Six lakh Nineteen Thousand 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 demand promissory note and statement of stocks hypothecated.

¶22

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, the defendant failed in complying 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 balance amount due in the account.

¶24

Despite, summons on the defendant, he failed to appear resulting the defendant being set exparte on 27.08.2024.

¶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 A-1 to A-15 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶26

OA 977/2023

¶27

¶28

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.

¶29

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶30

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

¶31

as against the defendant?

¶32

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶33

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶34

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 credit facilities as stated in the OA, creation of Hypothecation and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶38

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶39

OA 977/2023

¶40

¶41

availed for Business purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by

¶42

calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 10.00% (simple).

¶43

In the result, OA.No.977/2023, stands allowed,

¶44

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 26,24,192.54/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Twenty Four Thousand One Hundred Ninety Two and Paise Fifty Four Only) with further interest @10.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from

¶45

the defendant personally, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the defendant personally and also proceeding against his assets including the hypothecated assets. Schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶46

ii) 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 order.

¶48

iii) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶49

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

¶50

OA 977/2023

¶51

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

Rules, 1993.

¶55

[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 November, 2025].

¶56

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶57

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶58

ANNEXURES

¶59

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶60

AW-1: Sakharam R Bhandarkar, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶61

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶62

Exhibit Nos.	List of documents
A1	Loan application dated 23.01.2017
A2	Sanction letter dated 09.03.2017
A3	Agreement cum hypothecation deed dated 09.03.2017
A4	Acknowledgement of liability dated 29.03.2019
A5	Demand promissory note dated 20.02.2021
A6	Loan application
A7	Sanction letter dated 27.02.2018
A8	Statement of stocks hypothecated dated 27.02.2018
A9	Supplementary agreement dated 27.02.2018
A10	Demand promissory note dated 20.02.2021
A11	Demand promissory note for Rs. 40,314.71/- dated 20.02.2021
A12	Sanction letter for restructuring of loan dated 20.02.2021
A13	Modification deed for restructuring of loan dated 20.02.2021
A14	Legal notice dated 25.05.2022
A15	True extract of statement of account pertaining to the defendant loan accounts

¶63

OA 977/2023

¶64

¶65

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

¶66

-Nil -

¶67

-Nil -

¶68

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Shri J S Uday Kumar Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Shri J S Uday Kumar Shetty

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