Allowed

Pegasus Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms Aayug Multi Specialty Hospital

DRT31 Jul 2026OA/1697/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an application for recovery of debt against a hospital and its partners following an ex parte hearing, where the applicant proved a loan default through uncontroverted documentary evidence, resulting in an order for the issuance and execution of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 5,72,51,704 with further interest at 10% p.a. (simple) payable by defendants jointly, severally, and personally, executable against schedule properties.

Pegasus Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus Ms Aayug Multi… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

pIN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 31^th Day of July, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1697/2023

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt Ltd Branch office at: B-515, 5^th Floor, Mittal Tower, MG road, Bangalore – 560 001

¶6

Represented by its Asst Vice President Mr. Bhaskar Sarat Turaga …APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

M/s. Aayug Multi Specially Hospital Office address at: 477, 1^st main, AECS layout, ‘B’ block, Kundalahally, Bangalore – 560 037 Rep. by its Partners Dr. Goapalakrishnan M S And Mrs. Uma Gopalakrishnan

¶9

Dr. Gopalakrishnan M S S/o. Mr. Sundararajan M Aged about 51 years Having address at: 477, 1^st main, AECS layout, ‘B’ block, Kundalahally, Bangalore – 560 037

¶10

Mrs. Uma Gopalakrishnan W/o. Dr. Gopalakrishnan M S Aged about 46 years Having address at: 477, 1^st main, AECS layout, ‘B’ block, Kundalahally, Bangalore – 560 037 ...DEFENDANTS

¶11

2 OA-1697/2023

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : M/s. Indilegal. Defendants : Ex parte

¶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. 5,72,51,704/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Seventy-Two Thousand Five Hundred and Four Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶16

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants are availed a term loan of Rs. 3,18,00,000/- (Rupees Three crores Eighteen Lakhs Only).

¶17

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loan, the defendants executed the necessary loan document along with deposit of title deeds.

¶18

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan amount 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

¶20

3 OA-1697/2023

¶21

the amount due in the account.

¶22

Despite, entering appearance/filing vakalat, no written statement filed by the defendants. Hence, the chance for filing written statement stands closed on 27.07.2026. The defendants placed ex parte on 27.07.2026.

¶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-09 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

¶30

unrebutted as defendants remained ex parte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The

¶31

evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are

¶32

sufficient to prove availment of credit facility as stated in the OA,

¶33

creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the

¶34

4 OA-1697/2023

¶35

accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount

¶36

due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶37

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal

¶38

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

¶39

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility is

¶40

availed for commercial purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal of the view that OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 10.00% simple).

¶41

In the result, OA.No.1697/2023, stands allowed,

¶42

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 5,72,51,704/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Seventy-Two Thousand Five Hundred and Four Only) with further interest @10.00%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 the schedule properties. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶43

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants

¶44

5 OA-1697/2023

¶45

jointly, severally and personally and their assets are liable for balance amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶46

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶47

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

¶48

receipt of the order

¶49

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

¶50

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶51

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

¶52

terms of this final order.

¶53

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶54

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

¶55

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶56

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 31^th Day of July, 2026].

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICE

¶59

ANNEXURES

¶60

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶61

AW-1: Bhaskar Sarat Turaga, S/o. Sri. TSR Venkateswarlu, DVP, of Applicant Bank.

¶62

6 OA-1697/2023

¶63

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶64

Exhibits	Description
A1	Sanction letter dated 30.12.2017 in respect of term loan against property of Rs. 3,18,00,000/-
A2	Loan application submitted by the defendants
A3	“Facility agreement” dated 30.12.2017
A4	Demand promissory note dated 30.12.2017
A5	Declaration cum undertaking dated 30.12.2017
A6	“Power of attorney” dated 30.12.2017
A7	Memorandum of record of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds dated 17.05.2018, registered as document no. GAN-1-00785/2018-19 and stored in CD no. GAND308 in the office of the sub registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore executed by defendant no.2 as regards schedule A property
A8	Title deeds deposited viz: Sale deed dated 26.03.2018 executed by Sri. A N Yadawad in favour of Dr. Gopalakrishnan registered as document No. M S MLS-1-3598/2017-18 in the office of the sub registrar- Malleswaram as regards schedule A Property
A9	Statement of accounts maintained by the assignor in the ordinary course of business up to the dated of assignment and a claim statement of the applicant since assignment of the account

¶65

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶66

-Nil -

¶67

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶68

-Nil –

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Pegasus Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms Aayug Multi Specialty Hospital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pegasus Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. Ms Aayug Multi Specialty Hospital

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

Canara Bank versus Ms Kalka Packaging

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Fine Line Retails Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Ramappa G Khanagoudar

Mrs Azaz Fatima versus Hero Housing Finance Limited

M/s Pannalal Associates versus Anand Rathi Global Finance Limited

Ranjana Sharma versus Icici Bank Limited