Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Krishnamurthy K M

DRT19 Jun 2026OA/102/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant's Original Application seeking a Recovery Certificate for a loan default. The court held the claim proved despite the Defendant's failure to lead evidence. An aggregate sum of Rs. 27,59,865/- with 8% simple interest was awarded, with relief for recovery against assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate for Rs. 27,59,865/- with 8% simple interest from Defendants jointly and severally, including hypothecated assets.

Bank of Baroda versus Krishnamurthy K M — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 19^th Day of June, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No. 102/2022

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Bank of Baroda, ZOSAR Branch, Vijaya towers, No. 41/2, Trinity Circle M. G. Road, Bangalore -560001.

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. Krishna Murthy K. M, S/o. Muniyappa, No. 261, I B Mian Road, 8^th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore -560095.

¶9

Sri. Kumara M. C., No.53/5E, 23^rd Cross, Someshwara Layout, Hulimavu, Bangalore -76.

¶10

...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : T. N. Asha Defendant No.1 : Sri. Kiran Mirajakar Defendant No.2 : Ex parte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

The present Original Application in short “OA” has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 27,59,865/- (Rupees twentyseven lakh fifty-nine thousand eight hundred and sixty-five only) with further interest thereon and cost from the Defendants.

¶15

OA 102/2022

¶16

¶17

It is the case of the Applicant that Defendant No. 1, as principal borrower availed a facility under Vijaya Wheels for a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) for the purpose of purchasing Car Audi Q3 SUV Vehicle. Defendant Nos. 2 executed Letters of Guarantee in favour of the Applicant.

¶18

It is also the case of the Applicant that, in consideration of the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendants executed the necessary loan documents and created a hypothecation over the schedule property in favour of the Applicant Bank as security for the said loan facility.

¶19

Despite availing the credit facility, agreeing with the Terms and Conditions for the loans, failed in complying with the same, resulting in defaults and consequentially turning the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

¶20

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.

¶21

Summons were duly issued to all the Defendants. Defendant No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed its Written Statement; however, after the Applicant’s evidence, Defendant No. 1 failed to proceed with the matter by leading its evidence, and no opportunity was availed by it to lead Defendant’s evidence. Defendant No. 2 failed to appear despite service of summons and was, therefore, placed ex parte on 03.03.2025.

¶22

The Applicant adduced evidence through AW-1, who filed a Proof

¶23

OA 102/2022

¶24

¶25

Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the Original Application and produced Exhibits A-3 to A-10, which were duly marked in evidence.

¶26

In the Written Statement filed by Defendant No. 1, it is contended that the Applicant did not disclose the rate of interest and that the Applicant had taken over possession of the said vehicle. Thereafter, the Applicant had issued a sale notice on 20.09.2000, and till date the said vehicle remains in the custody of the Applicant. However, apart from the above, Defendant No. 1 failed to raise any serious contention regarding the availment of the loan and execution of the loan documents.

¶27

Heard for both side and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and the proof affidavits.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in the light of pleading and evidence:

¶29

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

¶30

ii) If so, to what extent?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

It is submitted that the Written Statement filed by Defendant No. 1 contains vague and evasive averments without any supporting material, and the contention regarding non-disclosure of the rate of interest is specifically denied as the Defendant No. 1 had executed the loan documents after fully understanding and accepting the terms thereof. The allegation regarding alleged taking over of possession of the

¶33

OA 102/2022

¶34

¶35

vehicle is misconceived and is a lawful consequence of the Applicant exercising its contractual rights upon default by the Defendants, while the issuance of the sale notice dated 20.09.2000 was also strictly in accordance with the loan agreement and applicable procedure, with the continued custody of the vehicle being attributable solely to the Defendants’ failure to regularize the account. Further, Defendant No. 1 has not disputed either the execution of the loan documents or the availment of the loan facility, and in the absence of any substantive defence on these material aspects, the objections raised deserve to be rejected.

¶36

The Applicant’s evidence remains unrebutted and is, therefore, deemed to be proved. The Applicant Bank has adduced evidence and produced all relevant and supporting documents establishing the availing of the loan facility by the Defendants, which have been duly exhibited and marked as Exhibits A1 to A15. The documents produced by the Applicant are admissible and sufficient to substantiate the claim made in the OA. The OA has been filed within the period of limitation, and there is no capitalization of penal interest. The loan documents placed on record by the Applicant are adequate to prove the availment of the loan facilities and the consequent liability of the Defendants. It is also pertinent to note that although Defendant No. 1 failed to proceed with the matter by leading its evidence and no opportunity was availed by it to adduce Defendant’s evidence, its averments remain unsubstantiated in the absence of any supporting material and, therefore, cannot dislodge the

¶37

OA 102/2022

¶38

¶39

documentary evidence led by the Applicant Bank.

¶40

Hence in view of the above findings this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the OA is liable to be allowed.

¶41

In the evidence filed by the Applicant, it is contended that Defendant No. 1 has made total payments of Rs. 18,09,258/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty-Eight only), which have been duly reflected in the loan account.

¶42

Taking into consideration the fact that the loan is availed by the Defendants for vehicle loan and also the fact that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 8.00% (simple). The prayer for interest with monthly rests and for penal interest for the future period is hereby declined.

¶43

In the result, OA.No.102/2022, is allowed,

¶44

i) The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 27,59,865/- (Rupees twenty-seven lakh fifty-nine thousand eight hundred and sixty-five only) along with pendente lite and future interest of 8.00% p.a. (simple), from the date of filing of the 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 including Rs. 18,09,258/- (Rupees eighteen lakh nine thousand two hundred and fifty-eight only) received from Defendant No.1, and is permitted to recover the same by proceeding against the Defendants personally and their assets including the schedule movable property. Property schedule to the OA schedule to the

¶45

OA 102/2022

¶46

¶47

recovery certificate.

¶48

ii) The Applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings for which Applicant to file cost memo within seven days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶52

(Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19^nd day of June, 2026).

¶53

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶54

ANNEXURES

¶55

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶56

AW-1: Gaurav Maheshwari, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶57

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶58

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	--	Application for loan
A2	--	Pronote
A3	--	Hypothecation agreement
A4	--	Letter of repayment
A5	--	Statement of assets
A6	--	Acknowledgement of liability
A7	--	Letter ofguarantee

¶59

OA 102/2022

¶60

¶61

A8	--	Statement of Assets
A9	--	Certificate of loan obtained
A10	--	Sanction memo
A11	--	B register extract
A12	--	Legal Audit Report
A13	--	Notice bythe Bank
A14	--	Return acknowledgement
A15	--	Statement of Accounts

¶62

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

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

(T. RAJESH)

¶65

PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Krishnamurthy K M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Krishnamurthy K M

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

Ms D S Enterprise And Anr. versus Axis Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri Amal Roy And Anr.

Ved Parkash versus Cholamandalam investment and finance company limited

Indian Bank versus M/S Sai Automobiles

Bank of India versus M/s Vishnu Priya Enterprises

Badal Das and Anr. versus Aditya Birla Finance Limited and Anr.