Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Arun Basavaraj Telsang

DRT30 Jun 2026OA/1366/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by a bank seeking a Recovery Certificate against joint borrowers for a housing loan. Defendants appeared ex parte. The Tribunal found the claim proved, reduced interest to 8% p.a., and granted recovery proceedings against pledged property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs.25,46,927.61 with interest at 8% p.a. from filing date, recoverable against mortgaged property and other assets jointly and severally.

Union Bank of India versus Arun Basavaraj Telsang — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 30^th Day of June, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1366/2022

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Union Bank Of India Shahapur Belgaum Branch CTS-1304 & 1305, Jyothirlinga Residency, Basavana Galli, Shahapur, Belagavi, Karnataka Pin-590004

¶6

Respresented By Its Branch Manager

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Arun basavaraj telsang S/o basavaraj, Aged About 46 Years, R/A No 45, Bazar Galli Khasbag, Ward No 20, Belgaum Shahapur Belagavi, Karnataka-590003,

¶10

Smt. Rajashri telsang, w/o arun teslang, aged about 37 years, R/A No 45, Bazar Galli Khasbag, Ward No 20, Belgaum Shahapur Belagavi, Karnataka-590003

...DEFENDANTS

OA 1366/2022

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶15

Applicant : Vignesh Shetty Defendants : Exparte

¶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 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.25,46,927.61/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Seven and Paise Sixty One Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant availed an Housing loan. Defendants no 1 & 2 approached towards housing purposes Rs.30,00,000 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only).

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with Mortgage Deed.

¶20

It is further contended that, the defendant 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.

¶21

OA 1366/2022

¶22

¶23

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.

¶24

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 02.07.2025.

¶25

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-05 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶26

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.

¶27

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶28

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

¶29

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶30

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶31

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶32

remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The

¶33

evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found

¶34

OA 1366/2022

¶35

¶36

admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of credit facility

¶37

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.

¶38

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this

¶39

Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶40

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility

¶41

are availed by defendants for Housing purpose and also that OA

¶42

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 @8% p.a. (Simple).

¶43

In the result, OA.No.1366/2022, stands allowed,

¶44

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.25,46,927.61/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Seven and Paise Sixty One Only) with further interest @8% p.a. (Simple),from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly severally personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and

¶45

OA 1366/2022

¶46

¶47

received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceedings against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶48

(ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendants jointly severally personally and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶49

iii) 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.

¶50

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

¶51

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

¶52

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶53

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

¶54

[Dictated to the Stenographer (ms), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by

¶55

me in the Open Court, this the 30th day of June, 2026].

¶56

Sd/(T. RAJESH)

¶57

PRESIDING OFFICER

OA 1366/2022

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶62

AW-1: Ankit Ramesh Mane, Branch Manager, of the Applicant Bank.

¶63

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶64

Exhibit	Particulars of Documents
A1	Loan application dated 09.08.2016
A2	Sanction letter dated 22.08.2016
A3	Letter of undertaking/ declaration executed by defendant no.1&2 in favour of applicant dated 22.08.2016
A4	Agreement for term loan loans executed by defendant no.1&2 in favour of applicant dated 22.08.2016
A5	Memorandum of deposit of title deed (mortgage) deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of applicant dated 23.08.2016
Witness	Examined for the Defendants:	-Nil -

¶65

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶66

-Nil -

¶67

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Arun Basavaraj Telsang

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Arun Basavaraj Telsang

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.