Allowed

Bank of India v. Vishnu Industries

DRT13 Feb 2026OA/175/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application for issuance of Recovery Certificate against respondents for a defaulted loan of Rs. 3.68 crore, reducing interest to 10% simple per annum as claim was for business purpose, granting recovery from schedule property and personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate allowed for Rs. 3,68,16,463.00 plus 10% simple interest from filing to realization, recoverable from schedule properties and personal assets jointly and severally.

Bank of India versus Vishnu Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 13^th Day of February, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.175/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Bank of India, Branch office at Mysuru, Royal Crown, Opp. Clock Tower, Ashoka Road, Mysuru- 570001, Represented by Chief manager, Mr. Deepshika Hayaran.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

M/s. Vishnu Industries, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr. Devendla Srinivasu, 126/A, KIADB Ind Area, Kadokola, Nanjagud, Mysore- 571311.

¶10

Also at Sy.No. 111-A and 112-P, Plot No. 126-A, Adakanahalli, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore.

¶11

Mr. Devendla Srinivasu, S/o Devendla Venkatesh, No. 297, 2^nd Cross, Bhovi Colony, Mandya- 571401.

¶12

...DEFENDANTS

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : K Raveendran Defendants : Exparte

OA 175/2024

FINAL ORDER

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. 3,68,16,463.00 (Rupees Three Crore Sixty Eight Lakh Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Three Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants availed OD facility of Rs. 3,40,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crore Forty Lakh Only) for the purpose of working capital.

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with On demand promissory note, Hypothecation cum loan agreement and memorandum of deposit of title deeds.

¶21

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Despite, summons the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 25.04.2025.

¶24

OA 175/2024

¶25

¶26

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-23 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

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.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

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

¶30

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

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 the security interest 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 of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶33

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

¶34

OA 175/2024

¶35

¶36

find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of

¶37

the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶38

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶39

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 10.00% (simple).

¶40

In the result, OA.No.1496/2024, stands allowed,

¶41

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.

¶42

3,68,16,463.00 (Rupees Three Crore Sixty Eight Lakh Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Three Only) with further interest @10.00 % 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 received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against schedule property. 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

¶44

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally & personally and their assets are liable for the amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶45

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

¶46

OA 175/2024

¶47

¶48

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

¶49

order.

¶50

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

¶51

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶52

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

¶53

of this final order.

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

Rules, 1993.

¶57

[Dictated to the Stenographer (AJ), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 13^th Day of February, 2026].

¶58

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶59

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶60

ANNEXURES

¶61

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶62

AW-1: Amit Kumar, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank

¶63

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶64

Annexure	List of Documents
A1	Application for BOI Star asset
A2	Sanction letter dated 22.06.2022
A3	On demand promissory note for Rs. 340 lakhs dated .6.2022

¶65

OA 175/2024

¶66

¶67

A4	Agreement L-516 dated 22.06.2022
A5	Term loan agreement dated 22.06.2022
A6	Hypothecation cum loan agreement for loan dated 22.06.2022
A7	Bearer letter in form L-435 dated 22.06.2022
A8	Format for RBLR agreement (new loan) dated 22.06.2022
A9	Undertaking letter dated 22.06.2022
A10	Credit facilities/ limits sanctioned to me/ us dated 22.06.2022
A11	Agreement dated 22.06.2022
A12	Agreement-RBI IRACP dated 22.06.2022
A13	Authorization letter dated 22.06.2022
A14	Our credit facilities with you dated 22.06.2022
A15	Re:declaration dated 22.06.2022
A16	Undertaking letter dated 22.06.2022
A17	Text of undertaking with consent clause for disclosure of information of credit facilities etc to CIBIL dated 22.06.2022
A18 & A19	Legal notice dated 21.09.2023 along with postal receipts
A20, A21 & A22	Returned postal covers of defendant Nos. 1 & 2
A23	Statement of account in respect of facility a/c No. 841025110000046 along with interest sheet and certificate

¶68

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

¶69

-Nil -

¶70

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of India v. Vishnu Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Vishnu Industries

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Ms Priti Industries through Its Proprietor Ms. Priti Shuddhodhan Ingle

State Bank of India versus Sh. Jasvir Singh @Jasbir Singh

Dipu Mathew versus Canara Bank

Rajibul Sk versus Uco Bank

Mr R Khokan Roy versus Axis Bank

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Imamsabi Siddiqui