Allowed

Bank of India v. Bun World

DRT20 Aug 2026OA/1577/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against a proprietorship concern and its proprietor. Defaults on a term loan were established via uncontroverted documentary evidence. The court granted relief with reduced interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 20,25,003.40 plus interest at 8% p.a. from filing date, recoverable against schedule property and from the personal assets of the defendants jointly and severally.

Bank of India versus Bun World — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 20^th Day of August, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1577/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Bank of India J.C. Road Branch, #4/2, OTC Road, OFF. J.C. Road, Behind LIC Building, Near Sharada Talkies, Bangalore-560 002. Represented by its Chief Manager and CA, Sri. Manoranjan Mishra.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

M/s Bun World (A Propertietor Concern) Ground Floor, ‘D’ Group Employees Layout, Srigandhadakaval, Yashwanthpura, Bangalore-5691. Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Vishwantha B

¶10

Mr. Vishwavanth B Aged about 42 years, S/o Mr. Boregowda, No. 19, 47^th A Cross, 6^th main Road, RCHS Layout, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore-560 091. ...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : M. Kumar Defendants : Exparte

¶13

2 1577/2022

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

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. 20,25,003.40/(Rupees Twenty Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Three and Paise Forty 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 No. 1 is the Proprietorship concern with defendant No. 2 as its Proprietor availed the Term Loan credit facility of Rs. 19,00,000/- from the applicant bank.

¶17

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with Demand Promissory Note, Bearer Letter, Hypothecation cum Loan Agreement, Composite Loan Agreement.

¶18

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

¶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 defendants failed to appear,

¶21

3 1577/2022

¶22

resulting the defendants being set exparte on 23.03.2026.

¶23

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-15 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶24

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.

¶25

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶26

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

¶27

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶28

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶29

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 hypothecation

¶30

and Mortgage as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim

¶31

4 1577/2022

¶32

of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶33

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.

¶34

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities was availed for business 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 12.00% (simple).

¶35

In the result, OA.No.1577/2022, stands allowed,

¶36

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 20,25,003.40/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Three and Paise Forty Only) with further interest @8.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally and 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 proceeding against schedule property. Schedule Properties to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶37

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the

¶38

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their assets are liable for the amounts due

¶39

5 1577/2022

¶40

under the loan accounts.

¶41

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings which

¶42

applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

[Dictated to the Stenographer (DV), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 20^th Day of August, 2026].

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(T. RAJESH)

¶50

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶51

ANNEXURES

¶52

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶53

AW-1: Mrs. Sabeena, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank

¶54

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶55

Annexure	Date	List of Documents
A1	--	Loan Application
A2	06.03.2019	Sanction Letter

¶56

6 1577/2022

¶57

A3	12.06.2019	On Demand Promissory Note
A4	12.06.2019	Bearer Letter
A5	12.06.2019	Authorization Letter
A6	12.06.2019	Hypothecation cum Loan Agreement
A7	12.06.2019	Draft Declaration to be obtained from the Borrower
A8	12.06.2019	Composite Loan Agreement
A9	12.06.2019	MCLR Format
A10	12.06.2019	Stamped Letter of Undertaking
A11	12.06.2019	Stamped letter of Undertaking
A12	12.06.2019	Stamped Letter undertaking
A13	12.06.2019	Draft
A14	21.01.2022	Legal Notice with Postal receipts and Retuned RP Receipts and Retuned RP Covers
A15	--	Certified Copy of the Statement of Account (TL A/c No. 840777710000008) with Certificate

¶58

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

¶59

-Nil -

¶60

-Nil –

¶61

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of India v. Bun World

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Bun World

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 Vikas Grameena Bank versus Sri.Heeru Somalu Lamani

Canara Bank versus Sri.Vijayakumar

Canara Bank versus Sri.Veerendra. D.M

Ms Anjani Kumar Srivastava and Others versus Mansarovar Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Mr Amit Kumar Nag and Anr. versus Axis Bank Limited

Sri Tuhin Kumar Das and Another versus Bank of India