Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Devaraj

DRT30 Jun 2026OA/1299/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the applicant bank's application for a Recovery Certificate against the defendant for an outstanding vehicle loan. The court, in the absence of the defendant, found the claim proved, reduced interest to 10%, and authorized recovery of the principal and reduced interest from the defendant's assets.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 20,26,500.15 with 10% simple interest from filing date to realization, attachable to all assets including hypothecated vehicle.

Bank of Baroda versus Devaraj — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 30^th Day of June, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1299/2025

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Bank of Baroda Banashankari Branch, No. 334, 22 1^st Main, 41^st Cross, 8^th Block, Banashankari, Bangalore-560 082. Represented by its Senior Manager, Mrs. Divya Lal. …APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Mr. Devaraj M.D S/o Doddahanumaiah, Aged about 47 years, R/at. No. 11, Murthi Nilaya, 1^st Main, Gubbala Main Road, Near Pooja Nakshatra Apartment, Ramachandra Layout, Subramanyapura, Banglore-560 061. ...DEFENDANTS

¶9

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶10

Applicant : Prakash Hegde. K Defendants : Exparte

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

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. 20,26,500.15/-

¶13

(Rupees Twenty Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Fifteen

¶14

2 1299/2025

¶15

Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶16

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant availed the Vehicle Loan credit facility of Rs. 23,00,000/- from the applicant bank.

¶17

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with Instrument of Hypothecation of vehicle, Declaration-cum -Undertakingscum-Authority, D.P. Note.

¶18

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan account promptly regularly, the defendants failed in complying the same, resulting in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA. It is also stated that, the applicant bank had initiated recovery proceedings and had sold the hypothecated vehicles in Public Auction for a sum of Rs. 13,10,000/(Rupees Thirteen Lakh and Ten Thousand Only) and for a sum of Rs. 13,10,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh and Ten Thousand Only) and the same was adjusted in the loan accounts of the Defendant.

¶19

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.

¶20

Despite, taking out summons the defendant failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 23.10.2025.

¶21

3 1299/2025

¶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-14 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 claim as against the defendant?

¶26

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶27

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶28

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 facility as stated in the OA, creation of hypothecation as claimed by the applicant bank 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.

¶29

4 1299/2025

¶30

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.

¶31

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was availed for vehicle purpose and also 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 of 10.00% (simple).

¶32

In the result, OA.No.1299/2025, stands allowed,

¶33

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 20,26,500.15/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Paise Fifteen Only) with further interest @10.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from 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 proceedings against the defendant and his assets including the schedule hypothecation. Schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

5 1299/2025

¶37

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶38

iv) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms

¶39

of this final order.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

Rules, 1993.

¶43

[Dictated to the Stenographer (DV), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 30^th Day of June, 2026].

¶44

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶45

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶46

ANNEXURES

¶47

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶48

AW-1: Naresh B Shetty, Recovery Officer of the applicant Bank

¶49

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶50

Annexure	Date	List of Documents
A1	01.06.2022	Loan Application
A2	09.06.2022	Sanction Letter
A3	10.06.2022	D.P. Note
A4	10.06.2022	Instrument of Hypothecation of vehicle
A5	10.06.2022	Declaration-cum-Undertaking-cum-Authority
A6	10.06.2022	Undertaking
A7	10.06.2022	D.P. Note
A8	10.06.2022	Instrument of Hypothecation of Vehicle
A9	10.06.2022	Declaration-cum-undertakings-cum-Authority
A10	10.06.2022	Undertaking

¶51

6 1299/2025

¶52

A11	--	Statement of Accounts in Loan Account No. 73620600002282
A12	--	Statement of Accounts in Loan Account No. 73620600002283
A13	06.09.2024	Legal Notice
A14	--	Postal Receipts

¶53

Witness Examined for the Defendant: -Nil - List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil –

¶54

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Devaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Devaraj

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Anugya Enterprises

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) versus M/s Maa Sharde Agritech

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Balajee Coal Depot

Manoj Kumar Sharma versus Punjab National Bank

Sri Ram Bhagat Sharma versus Icici Bank Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Niraj Marble and Tiles and Ors.