Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Vinodh Raj Vedaraj Sekarraj

DRT29 May 2026OA/1321/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tribunal allowed OA for issuance of recovery certificate. Court found evidence uncontroverted. Granted reduced interest at 10% p.a. and directed recovery from defendants as legal heirs and guarantor.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of recovery certificate for Rs. 32,15,207/- plus interest @ 10% p.a. (simple) from date of OA till realization, recoverable from defendants jointly and severally.

Union Bank of India versus Vinodh Raj Vedaraj… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 29^th Day of May, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1321/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

The Union Bank of India,

¶7

Its Head Office at Union Bank Bhavan No. 239, Vidhan Bahavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.

¶8

One of its Branch at Robertsonpet Branch, B.M Road, PB Bo.22, Robertsonpet, KGF Town, Kolar District, Represented by its Branch Manager Sri. Suresh E. …APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Mr. Vinodh Raj Vedaraj Sekarraj , S/o Mr. Dr. R.V. Sekarraj, Residing at No. 1769, 5^th Cross, Robertsonpet, KGF Town, Kolar District, Karnataka-563122.

¶11

Mrs. Hilda Sekarraj,

¶12

W/o Mr. Dr. R.V. Sekaraaj, Residing at No. 1769, 5^th Cross, Robertsonpet , KGF Town, Kolar District, Karnataka- 563122.

¶13

3. Sri Gopinatha N,

¶14

S/o Sri Natarajan, Residing AT No. 125, E T Block, Organum Post, KGF, Kolar District, Karnataka-56120.

¶15

Another Address:

¶16

Future Electronics, Sigma Soft Tech Park,

¶17

OA 1321/2022

¶18

¶19

Whitefield Main Road, Bangalore Karnataka-560066.

¶20

...DEFENDANTS

¶21

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶22

Applicant : Sri. N.G. Ravi Kumar and Sri. Rohith Ravi Kumar Defendants : Exparte

¶23

FINAL ORDER

¶24

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. 32,15,207.00/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Two hundred Seven only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶25

It is the case of the applicant that defendants No.1 & 2 are the legal heirs of the deceased borrower- Late Dr. R.V. Sekarraj who availed of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the applicant bank on 12.08.2010. The defendant No.3 is the guarantor for the said credit facility.

¶26

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with Loan Application, Loan Sanction letter, Agreement for term Loan, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds

OA 1321/2022

with sale deed.

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

¶31

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking for issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

¶32

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 7.05.2026.

¶33

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-9 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶34

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and the proof affidavit.

¶35

OA 1321/2022

¶36

¶37

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶38

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶39

OA claim as against the defendants?

¶40

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶41

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶42

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 facilities as stated in the OA, creation of Mortgage as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim as the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation. Even though one Mr. R.V.Sekarraj also availed education loan along with D1 & D2 who is deceased, He has not been arrived as defendant as his legal heirs are already on record as D1 & D2.

¶43

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this

¶44

OA 1321/2022

¶45

¶46

Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence

¶47

this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶48

12. Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶49

are availed for education purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal

¶50

in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 10.00% (simple).

¶51

In the result, OA.No.1321/2022 stands allowed,

¶52

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶53

sum of Rs. 32,15,207/- (Rupees Thirty Two lakh Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Seven only) with further interest @ 10.00% p.a. (Simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants D1 & D2 to the extent of his inheritance of any estate from the deceased borrower Dr. R.V.Sekarraj after giving credit to all the amount recovered and

¶54

received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same

¶55

to be recovered by proceedings against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶56

OA 1321/2022

¶57

¶58

(ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their other assets and the defendant No.1 and 2 to extent of his inheritance of any estate from the deceased borrower Late Dr. R.V.Sekarraj

¶59

are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶60

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶61

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

¶62

receipt of the order.

¶63

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

¶64

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶65

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

¶66

in terms of this final order.

¶67

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶68

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

¶69

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶70

[Dictated to the Stenographer (DV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 29^th day of May, 2026].

¶71

(T. RAJESH)

¶72

PRESIDING OFFICER

Sd/-

OA 1321/2022

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶78

AW-1: G. Ravi, Senior Manager of Applicant Bank.

¶79

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶80

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	20.07.2010	Loan Application
A2	12.08.2010	Loan Sanction Letter
A3	27.08.2010	Agreement for term Loan
A4	27.08.2010	Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds
A5	27.08.2010	Guarantee Agreement
A6	15.07.2019	On demand promissory note
A7	15.07.2019	Take delivery letter to DPN
A8	23.08.2022	Statement of Rephasement Account from 01.07.2014 to 23.08.2022 with certificate
A9	29.09.2021	Copy of the Bank Notice

¶81

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

¶82

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶83

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

Union Bank of India v. Vinodh Raj Vedaraj Sekarraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Vinodh Raj Vedaraj Sekarraj

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

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Aby Abraham

RRaju Kalidoss versus Canara Bank

Sajan S versus Yes Bank

Vinod Kumar Gupta versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Marvel Metals Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Mr B S Girisha versus Dcb Bank Limited