Allowed

Indian Bank v. Subramanya Prabhu

DRT31 Jul 2026OA/1054/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application under the RDB Act requesting a Recovery Certificate. The bank proved the loan advance, default, and auction sale of mortgaged property. The Tribunal awarded recovery of the balance dues with reduced interest.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is allowed to recover Rs.23,31,245/- with future simple interest at 8.00% p.a., and the Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and transferred for execution.

Indian Bank versus Subramanya Prabhu — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 31^th Day of July 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.1054/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Indian Bank SAM Branch, Bangalore.

¶7

… APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Subramanya Prabhu.P S/o.Sri. Parameshwaran, R/at: No.136/9, S-HIG-1 Block, Naramada Building, KHB Colony, 5^th Phase, Yelahanka,

¶10

Bangalore-560064.

¶11

Smt.Vishala.S

¶12

W/o. Sri.Subramanya Prabhu.P R/at: No.136/9, S-HIG-1 Block, Naramada Building, KHB Colony, 5^th Phase, Yelahanka, Bangalore-560064 ...DEFENDANTS

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : Sri.K.R.Parashuram Defendant : Exparte

¶15

2 OA No.1054/2024

¶16

: FINAL ORDER:

¶17

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 Rs.23,31,245/(Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs Thirty-One Thousand Two Hundred and Forty-Five Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶18

The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 availed a sum of Rs.67,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Seven Lakhs Only) for purpose of Housing Loan. The Defendant No.1 is the borrower and Defendant No.2 is the Guarantor.

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facility, the defendants executed necessary loan documents. Apart from the creation of security interest by way of mortgage, Demand Promissory Note and hypothecation over the Schedule property. The Defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the immovable property

¶20

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

¶21

Further the applicant contents that a SARFAESI measures initiated

¶22

under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act in the year 2021. The E-auction sale was held on 21.07.2022 in respect of the property mortgaged by the

¶23

3 OA No.1054/2024

¶24

Defendants and one Smt. C.Sandhya Rani W/o. N.Manjunatha Raju was the highest bidder. The reserve price of the E auction sale was fixed at Rs.56,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Six Lakhs Only) and the bid amount was Rs.56,10,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Six Lakhs Ten Thousand Only). The said auction purchaser has paid the entire bid amount to the applicant bank within the stipulated time. The sale certificate was issued on 16.08.2022 in the name of Smt.C.Sandhya Rani. The defendants are in due of further amount Rs.23,31,245/(Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs Thirty-One Thousand Two Hundred and Forty-Five Only) after adjusting the sale proceedings.

¶25

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.

¶26

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 25.11.2025.

¶27

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A13 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶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

4 OA No.1054/2024

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶31

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

¶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 defendants 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 facility as stated in the OA, creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. 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.

¶35

Hence in view of the above findings 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 credit facility was 13.

¶37

availed for Housing Loan and also that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view of the OA can be allowed

¶38

with a reduced interest of 8.00% p.a.(simple).

¶39

5 OA No.1054/2024

¶40

In the result, OA.No.1054/2024 stands allowed, 14.

¶41

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of for Rs.23,31,245/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs Thirty-One Thousand Two Hundred and Forty-Five Only) along with current and future interest 8.00% p.a.(simple) till the date of realization, from the defendants, after

¶42

giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA if any, and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the defendants and their other Assets.

¶43

ii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶49

6 OA No.1054/2024

¶50

[Dictated to the Stenographer (GS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 31^st Day of July 2026].

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶53

ANNEXURES

¶54

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶55

AW-1: Mrs. Rashmi Prabhakar Rao, Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

¶56

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Exhibit Number
1.	Sanction letter dated 27.10.2016	A1
2.	On demand promissory note in Form D1 dated 27.10.2016	A2
3.	Disposal of proceeds letter in Form D7 dated 27.10.2016	A3
4.	Term Loan Agreement for Home Loan in Form D128 dated 27.10.2016	A4
5.	Letter from borrower to bank for realizing funds in form F-195 dated 27.10.2016	A5
6.	Letter of authority from the borrower in form F190 dated 27.10.2016	A6
7.	Letter from the borrower for disclosure of information in Form F-164 dated 27.10.2016	A7
8.	Declaration by the borrower in Form F-172 dated 27.10.2016	A8
9.	Agreement of guarantee in Form D-57 dated 27.10.2016	A9
10.	Acknowledgement of Debt-cum security dated 25.05.2018	A10
11.	Acknowledgement of Debt-cum security dated 04.03.2021	A11
12.	Sale Certificate dated 03.04.2023	A12
12.	Statement of A/c and the banker’s certificate	A13

¶57

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Indian Bank v. Subramanya Prabhu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Subramanya Prabhu

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 Ms Kalka Packaging

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Fine Line Retails Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Ramappa G Khanagoudar

Mrs Azaz Fatima versus Hero Housing Finance Limited

M/s Pannalal Associates versus Anand Rathi Global Finance Limited

Ranjana Sharma versus Icici Bank Limited