Allowed

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Jijo Mathew

DRT24 Jun 2026OA/131/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Application for Recovery Certificate (OA) filed by Union Bank of India against three respondents. The applicant claimed dues under PMECC and other loans. The Tribunal upheld the debt based on documentary evidence, disregarded lack of defense evidence, and awarded recovery with interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate directed for Rs. 34,01,057.50 with 12% p.a. interest; recovery against schedule properties and personal assets if insufficient.

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Jijo Mathew — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of June, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.131/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Union Bank of India Erstwhile Corporation Bank Branch office at Mala, Mallar, Karkala Taluk, Udupi District, Rep. by its Manager and PA Holder … APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Mr. Jijo Mathew S/o. A M Sunny Aged 35 years R/at. Hosabeetu Mane, Near Vishnumurthy Temple Mala Village, Karkala Taluk, Proprietor of Unirdham Industries, S No. 4P2 Hosabettu, Mala village, Karkala Taluk Udupi District

¶9

Mr. A.M. Sunny S/o. Mr. A.J. Mathew Aged 61 years R/at. Hosabettu Mane, Near Vishnumurthy Temple, Mala Village and Post, Karkalla Taluk, Udupi District

¶10

Mrs. Mary W/o. A.M. Sunny Aged 59 years R/at. Hosabettu Mane, Near Vishnumurthy Temple, Mala Village and Post, Karkalla Taluk, Udupi District ...DEFENDANTS

¶11

2 OA/131/2022

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Sri. Manmohan P.N., Defendants No.1, 3 : Smt. Sandhya U Prabhu Defendant No.2 : Exparte

¶14

:FINAL ORDER:

¶15

This application is filed under S.19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993, with a prayer to issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.34,01,057.50 (Rupees Thirty Four Lakh One Thousand Fifty Seven and Fifty Paisa only) claiming to be due in Pradhan Mantri Employment Generation Programme (PMECC) for Rs.6,65,000/-,wherein the 2^nd defendant stood as a guarantor and had executed necessary loan documents. It is contended that, the credit facilities are secured by hypothecation over the schedule.

¶16

It is also the case of the applicant that, another credit facility of CCCK loan of cultivation of pineapple was availed to the tune of Rs.4,85,000/which also secured by hypothecation of the crops. Apart from, creation mortgage over the schedule properties. The applicant also contends that, another two credit facilities of Rs.12,50,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- for pineapple cultivation was sanctioned on 04.02.2016 and 03.08.2016, which also stood disbursed against the execution of loan documents. The applicant further put forth a case that, since the defendants failed to service the accounts, the accounts were declared as NPA, resulting the applicant to filed this OA seeking the recovery of due in the account.

¶17

3 OA/131/2022

¶18

The 1^st defendant had filed the written statement, admitting the disbursement of credit facility and also the execution of loan documents. However, the defendant contends that, the NPA classification is wrong as the defendant had been making regular repayments to the loan account. The 1^st and 3^rd defendant filed their written statement wherein the availment of the credit facilities not admitted, though not denied specifically. The 1^st and 3^rd defendant had also put forth a contention that, there is no occasion for declaring the account as NPA and also states that, failure in payments if any is caused due to natural calamities. It is also pointed out that, the applicant herein is not the lending bank as the credit facilities were availed from erstwhile Corporation Bank.

¶19

The applicant had let in evidence and got marked documents as exhibit A1 to A21, no defense evidence is adduced despite granting sufficient opportunity.

¶20

Heard the submissions of the applicant counsel and perused the available records.

¶21

The following issues arise for consideration.

¶22

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the liability of the defendants as put forth in the OA and their entitlement to the same recovered?

¶23

ii) What Orders to be passed?

¶24

Both the issues are gone into and decided together.

¶25

¶26

OA/131/2022

¶27

The case of the applicant as to the availment of the credit facility and disbursement of the facilities are not in serious dispute by the defendants as apart from a mere evasive denial of the pleading as to the OA, no specific contention denying the execution of loan documents is put forth. The documents produced by the applicant are not in serious dispute. The defendants only put forth a contention that, there were prompt repayments and despite that the account has been classified as NPA. Even though such a plea taken as defense, no proof as to any such repayments is forthcoming. Despite the fact that, the statement of account produced by the applicant is got marked in evidence, the defendant had failed to put forth any anomaly in the statement of accounts nor had produced any proof as to payment of any amount which evaded the statement of accounts. In view of the this Tribunal is of the view that, the defense said forth by the defendants is to be discarded.

¶28

The documents produced by the applicant are found to be admissible in the evidence and are sufficient to prove the OA claim, no defense evidence is produced in support of the contention put forth by the defendant, leading this Tribunal to entering into a finding that, the applicant had succeeded in proving the case put forth in the OA on the basis of the documents produced by them.

¶29

Taking note for the fact that, the OA claim is entered by calculating interest at agreed rate that too with penal interest and default charges, this Tribunal is of the view that, the penda lite and future interest can be

¶30

¶31

OA/131/2022

¶32

awarded at reduced rate @12.00%p.a. Taking note of the above, the penal interest is also declined.

¶33

In the result, OA.No.131/2022 stands allowed.

¶34

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an amount of

¶35

Rs.34,01,057.50 (Rupees Thirty Four Lakh One Thousand Fifty Seven and Fifty Paisa only) with further interest of 12.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from defendants, 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 property. The schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶36

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally, personally and other their assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶37

iii) 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.

¶38

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

¶39

6 OA/131/2022

¶40

10. 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 (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 24^th Day of June 2026].

¶44

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶45

ANNEXURES

¶46

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶47

AW-1: Sri. Kiran S N, Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

¶48

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶49

Annexure	Particulars
A1	Credit Sanction Intimation Letter Dated 22.04.2009
A2	Letter Of Proprietorship Dated 19.02.2009
A3	Guarantee Agreement Dated 05.05.2009
A4	DPN and Take Delivery Note dated 05.05.2009
A5	Hypothecation Deed dated 05.05.2009
A6	Acknowledgment of AOD dated 18.10.2019
A7	Application for loan dated 28.12.2013
A8	Hypothecation deed dated 28.12.2013
A9	DPN and Take Delivery Note dated 28.12.2013
A10	Application for loan dated 04.02.2016
A11	Hypothecation deed dated 04.02.2016
A12	Guarantee agreement dated 04.02.2016
A13	DPN and Take Delivery note dated 04.02.2016
A14	Application for loan dated 03.08.2016

¶50

¶51

OA/131/2022

¶52

A15	Hypothecation deed dated 03.08.2016
A16	Guarantee agreement dated 03.08.2016
A17	DPN and Take Delivery Note dated 04.02.2016
A18	Loan account statement dated 10.12.2021
A19	Loan account statement dated 13.07.2021
A20	Loan account statement dated 13.07.2021
A21	Loan account statement dated 13.07.2021

¶53

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Jijo Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) v. Jijo Mathew

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

State Bank of India versus Haja Majmudeen Abdul Razak

Union Bank of India versus M/s Pallavi Pharma

Ms Joysri Enterprises versus Indian Bank

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Haji Mohammad Sultan Sofi

Ellaquai Dehati Bank versus Ghulam Rasool Mir

Keshav Prasad Choubey versus Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Limited