Allowed

Canara Bank v. Stanley Thirekoppa

DRT24 Jun 2026OA/1499/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Canara Bank seeking a recovery certificate. The court found the Defendant's evidence insufficient to prove claims regarding PMEGP guidelines violations or bank non-cooperation. The loan facility was admitted, and default was established.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 24,32,546.79 with simple interest at 8% p.a. from 14.07.2023. Permission to recover proceedings against defendant personally and schedule movable assets.

Canara Bank versus Stanley Thirekoppa — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of June, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1499/2023

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank, Maruti Galli, Belagavi District -590002, Karnataka, Rep. by its Manager,

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. Stanley Thirekoppa, S/o. Sri. Timothy Gabrial, No. 493, 2^nd Main, 2^nd Cross, Near Shivalaya, Sadashivanagar, Belgaum -590001.

¶9

...DEFENDANT

¶10

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶11

Applicant : M & R Consult Defendant : Sandeep M Hosamath

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

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. 24,32,546.79 (Rupees twenty-four lakh thirty-two thousand five hundred forty-six and paisa seventy-nine only) with further interest thereon and cost from the Defendant.

¶14

It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendant, being the

¶15

OA 1499/2023

¶16

¶17

borrower, had availed of two loans, namely, a Working Capital Loan of Rs. 9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) and a Term Loan of Rs. 14,25,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh Twenty-Five Thousand Only), from the Applicant Bank, and had agreed to repay the same in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the respective loan agreements.

¶18

It is also the case of the Applicant that, in consideration of the aforesaid loan facilities, the Defendant executed the necessary loan documents, including a Demand Promissory Note in respect of the Term Loan, and created a charge by way of hypothecation over the schedule properties in favour of the Applicant Bank as security for due repayment of the said loan facilities.

¶19

It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendant, despite having availed the credit facility and agreed to the terms and conditions thereof, failed to comply with the same, resulting in defaults and the loan account being classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

¶20

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.

¶21

Summons were issued to the Defendant. Defendant entered appearance through counsel and filed written statement. However, despite being granted sufficient opportunities, they failed to adduce evidence, and accordingly, their evidence was closed on 28.04.2026.

¶22

OA 1499/2023

¶23

¶24

In the written statement, the Defendant has admitted that he availed the credit facilities for the purpose of his business. However, the Defendant contends that an unanticipated increase in the cost of machinery and other raw materials, coupled with the alleged noncooperation of the officials of the Applicant Bank, led to the failure of the project. The Defendant further contends that, as per the guidelines of the PMEGP, the financing bank was required to grant an initial moratorium period to the beneficiary after the commencement of the project. According to the Defendant, contrary to the said guidelines, the Applicant Bank compelled him to commence repayment of the loan within two months from the date of sanction of the loan, which adversely affected the viability of the project.

¶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-11, got the same marked in evidence.

¶26

Heard both sides, and considered the contentions raised in the OA in the light of the documentary evidence and proof affidavits. It is noted that the Applicant alone has adduced evidence in support of its case, whereas the Defendant have not led any evidence and have merely filed the written statement.

¶27

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶28

i) Whether the Applicant succeeded in proving the OA claim as

¶29

OA 1499/2023

¶30

¶31

against the Defendant?

¶32

ii) If so, to what extent?

¶33

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶34

The aforesaid contention of the Defendant is not supported by any cogent oral or documentary evidence. Though the Defendant has produced certain documents, including legal notice, letter for regularization of account, request for additional credit facility and revival and statement of account, along with the written statement, he has failed to adduce evidence and prove the said documents in accordance with law. The Defendant has neither failed to mark the said documents as competent evidence. Consequently, no evidentiary value can be attached to those documents. In the absence of any legally admissible evidence, the Defendant has failed to establish any violation of the PMEGP guidelines or any act of non-cooperation on the part of the Applicant Bank that contributed to the failure of the project. Further, there is no material on record to demonstrate that the repayment schedule stipulated by the Applicant Bank was contrary to the terms of sanction or the applicable scheme guidelines. Accordingly, the said contention is devoid of merit and cannot absolve the Defendant of his contractual liability to repay the loan amount in accordance with the loan documents executed by him.

¶35

OA 1499/2023

¶36

¶37

The evidence tendered by the Applicant remains uncontroverted

¶38

and undisputed. The evidence put forth by the Applicant is found admissible and sufficient to prove the averments made in the OA, and the default committed by the Defendant in repaying the loan amount due.

¶39

The liability of the Defendant and the loan amount due are also proved by the above documents.

¶40

Hence in view of the above findings this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the OA is liable to be allowed.

¶41

Taking into consideration of the fact that the loans are availed for

¶42

business purposes and also the fact that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, pendente lite and future interest is

¶43

awarded at 8.00% (simple). The prayer for interest with compounded

¶44

monthly rests and for penal interest for the future period is hereby declined.

¶45

In the result, OA.No. 1499/2023, is allowed,

¶46

i) The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 24,32,546.79 (Rupees twenty-four lakh thirty-two thousand five hundred

¶47

forty-six and paisa seventy-nine only) with pendente lite and future interest

¶48

of 8.00% p.a. (simple) from 14.07.2023 till the realization from the

¶49

OA 1499/2023

¶50

¶51

Defendant personally after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA if any, and allow the same to be recovered by proceeding against the defendant and also by proceeding against his assets including the schedule movable property. Property schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶52

ii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings for which

¶53

Applicant to file cost memo within seven days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure)

¶57

Rules, 1993.

¶58

(Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24^th day of June, 2026).

¶59

Sd/(T. RAJESH)

¶60

ANNEXURES

¶61

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶62

AW-1: Jibin Joseph, Officer, of Applicant Bank.

¶63

OA 1499/2023

¶64

¶65

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶66

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	01.01.2022	Application form for loan
A2	28.12.2021	Sanction letter
A3	01.01.2022	Letter of proprietorship
A4	01.01.2022	Request for overdraft facilities
A5	28.12.2021	Pronote
A6	01.01.2022	Composite Loan agreement
A7	01.01.2022	Letter of undertaking
A8	01.01.2022	Guarantee agreement
A9	17.02.2023	Legal notice
A10	--	Certified statement of account
A11	--	Certified statement of account

¶67

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

-Nil -

-Nil -

Sd/-

(T. RAJESH)

PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Stanley Thirekoppa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Stanley Thirekoppa

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