Allowed

Canara Bank v. Ms Manasa Motors

DRT30 Jan 2026OA/1226/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for a recovery certificate. The defendants were absent. The court reduced the interest rate to 12% simple per annum and directed recovery from the defendants and their assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 25,33,866/- plus interest at 12% p.a. from filing till realization, recoverable from defendants jointly, severally, and personally.

Canara Bank versus Ms Manasa Motors — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 30^th Day of January, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1226/2022

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank Head office at: #112, JC road, Bangalore – 560 002 Branch office at: Dabaspete Branch, Dabaspete, Bangalore Rural District – 562 111

¶6

Represented by its Senior Manager Sri. Pavan Kumar G A …APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

M/s. Manasa Motors At no. 92/1, A1, Shivaganga Main Road, Dabaspet, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District – 562 111

¶9

Smt. Hamsaveni H V W/o. H N Manjunatha Aged about 35 years M/s. Manasa motors At no. 92/1, A1, Shivaganga Main Road, Dabaspet, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District – 562 111

¶10

Also at: Residing at: no. 43, Honnavara, Purushanahalli Post, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural District – 561 203 ...DEFENDANTS

¶11

2 OA-1226/2022

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Mohamed Afroze Ahamed Defendants : Ex parte

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

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 against the defendants for Rs. 25,33,866/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Six Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶16

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants are availed an working capital loan of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only) for the purpose of Bajaj motorbikes showroom dealership.

¶17

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loan, the defendants executed the necessary loan documents. 4. 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.

¶18

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for

¶19

3 OA-1226/2022

¶20

the amount due in the account.

¶21

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 24.09.2025.

¶22

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-13 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶23

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.

¶24

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶25

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶26

claim as against the defendants?

¶27

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶28

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶29

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

¶30

sufficient to prove availment of credit facility as stated in the OA,

¶31

creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the

¶32

accounts. The liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount

¶33

4 OA-1226/2022

¶34

due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the

¶35

applicant is well within the limitation.

¶36

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶37

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility are availed for Business purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal of the view that OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 12.00%(simple).

¶38

In the result, OA.No.1226/2022 stands allowed,

¶39

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of

¶40

Rs. 25,33,866/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Six Only) with further interest @12.00% 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 amount 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

¶42

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants

¶43

5 OA-1226/2022

¶44

jointly, severally and personally and their assets are liable for balance

¶45

amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶46

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶47

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

¶48

receipt of the order.

¶49

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

¶50

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶51

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

¶52

terms of this final order.

¶53

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶54

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

¶55

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶56

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in

¶57

the Open Court, this the 30^th Day of January, 2026].

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶60

6 OA-1226/2022

¶61

ANNEXURES

¶62

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶63

AW-1: Meenakshi Goutam, W/o. Arvind Verma, Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶64

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶65

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	12.07.2017	Loan application
A2	17.07.2017	Loan sanction memorandum
A3	17.07.2017	On demand promissory note
A4	17.07.2017	NF-482, the certificate of loan papers obtained
A5	17.07.2017	NF-373, the particulars of machinery for
A6	21.06.2017	Letter of proprietorship
A7	17.07.2017	Cash credit agreement
A8	17.07.2017	NF-372, the request for overdraft facilities
A9	07.06.2017	Copy of value added tax registration certificate
A10	10.03.2020	Legal notice
A11	22.05.2020	Un-served RPAD postal cover
A12	08.11.2019	Letter of revival executed by the defendant
A13	--------	Statement of accounts in and working capital loan a/c. no. 3285261000078
Witness	Examined fo	r the Defendants: -Nil -

¶66

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶67

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil -

¶68

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶69

Sd/-

Canara Bank v. Ms Manasa Motors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Ms Manasa Motors

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

S Rajeswari versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Kishan Mitrapal Chawla Dairy

Bank of India versus Ms Narmada Pipes

Ms Khajuria Constructions and Another versus State Bank of India

Raj Kumar Baniya versus State Bank of India

Smt Firoja Begum versus Indian Bank