Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Balaji Constructions Rep by Its Proprietor Sri Balakrishna R.

DRT19 Jun 2025OA/979/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Canara Bank against M/s. Balaji Constructions for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The court held the claim proved and unconditional despite the application being delayed due to defaulting. The court ordered reduced interest at 10% p.a. simple and allowed recovery from jointly/severally liable parties and hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.20,56,454/- with 10% simple interest from date of filing; recovery against persons and assets including hypothecated security.

Canara Bank versus M/S Balaji Constructions Rep by Its… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 19^th Day of June, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer

OA.No.979/2022

BETWEEN:

Canara Bank

Head Office at – 112, J.C. Road, Town Hall Junction Bengaluru Branch Office at - Banashankari 2^nd Stage Branch 121, 27^th Cross, Banashankari II Stage Bengaluru 560 070

¶9

.. APPLICANT

¶10

AND:

¶11

M/s. Balaji Constructions

¶12

Represented by its proprietor Sri Balakrishna R. Aged about 45 year5s No.3, 10^th Main/Cross Kailasam Road, Bendrenagar BSK II Stage, Bangalore 560 070 .. DEFENDANTS

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : B. Rajashsree ‘N’ Rajesh S. Defendant : ex parte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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

¶17

Rs.20,56,454/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand

¶18

2 OA/979/2022

¶19

Four Hundred Fifty Four only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant, a proprietorship concern, represented by Proprietor Sri R. Balakrishna availed OD loan of Rs.16.00 lakhs for purchase of business inventories and working capital for the day today services business. Later on, the OD loan was closed and it was restructured into two different accounts pursuant to sanction letter dated 17.07.2020, 25.03.2021, 30,06,2020.

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that defendants have undertaken to repay the liability, subject to annual review or on Demand to pay with interest for the value received and further to pay the interest at such rate as revised by the bank from time to time.

¶22

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed the amount, the defendant executed agreement cum deed of hypothecations dated 30.06.2020 and 22.07.2020, Debt Restructuring agreement dated 26.03.2021, Debtor credit agreement dated 26.03.2021.

¶23

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and

¶24

3 OA/979/2022

¶25

regularly, the defendant failed in complying the same, resulting in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶26

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.

¶27

Summons was taken out to the defendants, names of the Defendants were called out in the open court on 24.09.2024 and none represented, hence they were placed as ex parte.

¶28

The applicant let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-3 to A16 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶29

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.

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants?

¶31

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶32

4 OA/979/2022

¶33

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶34

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 Housing Loan facility as stated in the OA, creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liabilities 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.

¶35

Hence in view of the above finding which cover both the issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶36

Taking into consideration the facts that the 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 to simple. 10. In the result, OA.No.979/2022 stands allowed,

¶37

i) The applicant is allowed to recover a sum of

¶38

Rs.20,56,454/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Four only) with interest

¶39

5 OA/979/2022

¶40

of 10% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, 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 defendants jointly severally and personally and also by proceeding against their assets including the hypothecated assets. The schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶41

ii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶42

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

¶43

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶44

iv) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of with this Final Order.

¶45

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶46

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

¶47

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶48

[Dictated to the Stenographer (Unni), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 19th Day of June, 2025].

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶51

6 OA/979/2022

¶52

ANNEXURES

¶53

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶54

AW-1: Sri Deepak Kumar, Chief Manager of the applicant bank.

¶55

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶56

Annexure	Particulars
A3	Sanction letter for the account No.1147755000041 dated 17.07.2020
A4	Sanction letter for the account No.1147753000018 dated 25.03.2021
A5	Sanction letter for the account No.1147746000005 dated 25.03.2021
A6	Sanction letter for the account No.1147747000006
A7	Agreement cum deed of hypothecation dated 30.06.2020
A8	Agreement cum deed of hypothecation dated 22.07.2020
A9	Debt Restructuringagreement dated 26.03.2021
A10	Debtor Credit Agreement dated 26.03.2021
A11	Legal Notice postal receipt and returned envelope dated 28.09.2021
A12	Certificate by Banker under 2A(b) and 2A(c) of the Bankers Book of Evidence Act 17.06.2022.
A13	Bank statement 1147755000041
A14	Bank statement 1147753000018
A15	Bank statement 1147746000005
A16	Bank statement 1147747000006

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. M/S Balaji Constructions Rep by Its Proprietor Sri Balakrishna R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Balaji Constructions Rep by Its Proprietor Sri Balakrishna 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

Formost Center versus Hdfc Ltd.

M/s Md Kaif Poultry Feed versus Indian Bank

Smt Yasmeen versus Icici Bank Limited

Maheswari a versus Punjab National Bank

Canara Bank versus Goudappa Hanumanthappa Huchareddy

Canara Bank versus Smt. Laxmibai