Allowed

Uco Bank v. Amaatra Health Private Limited

DRT20 Aug 2026OA/2010/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by a bank to issue a Recovery Certificate against borrowers for a business loan default, reducing the agreed interest to 9% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.50,63,724/ with 9% p.a. interest; execution against schedule property and other assets.

Uco Bank versus Amaatra Health Private Limited — Banking and Recovery | 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.2010/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

UCO Bank No.149/2, Koramanagala Branch, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560095.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

M/s. Amaatra Health Private Limited

¶10

SH 901, Purva Reasons,

¶11

Purva 270, Kaggadasapura Main Road,

¶12

C.V. Raman Nagar,

¶13

Bangalore

¶14

Represented by Chairman

¶15

Mrs.Krishnadas Avanally

¶16

Mrs.Bindu Krishna Das

¶17

W/o.Mr.Krishnadas Avanally, R/at: No.1114, 11^th Floor, Raheja Towers, East Wing, M.G. Road, Bangalore-560001

¶18

Mr.Krishnadas Avanaly S/o.Late.Sivasankara Menon KG R/at: No.1114, 11^th Floor, Raheja Towers, East Wing, M.G. Road, Bangalore-560001.

¶19

...DEFENDANTS

¶20

2 OA No.2010/2023

¶21

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶22

Applicant : Sri. K.R.Parashuram Defendants : Ayddha Legal

¶23

: FINAL ORDER:

¶24

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.50,63,724/(Rupees Fifty Lakhs Sixty-Three Thousand Seven Hundred and TwentyFour Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶25

The Defendants No.1 and 2 availed a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) for purpose of Working Capital

¶26

The Defendants No.1 and 2 availed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) for purpose of additional Working Capital Loan Under GECL. Guarantee Agreement is executed by Defendant No.3.

¶27

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facility, the defendants executed necessary loan documents. Apart from the creation of security interest by way of hypothecation over the Schedule property.

¶28

3 OA No.2010/2023

¶29

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 account as NPA.

¶30

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.

¶31

Summons served to the defendants on 18.08.2026 the proceedings recorded that the defendants had filed the written statements beyond the time without any application. Hence written statements filed by the defendants declined and rejected.

¶32

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A19 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶33

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.

¶34

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶35

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

¶36

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶37

4 OA No.2010/2023

¶38

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶39

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 facility as stated in the OA, creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. 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.

¶40

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶41

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was availed for business purpose and also that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view of the OA can be allowed as prayed in OA.

¶42

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was availed for business purpose and also, that 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 9% p.a.(simple).

¶43

5 OA No.2010/2023

¶44

In the result, OA.No.2010/2023 stands allowed.

¶45

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of for Rs.50,63,724/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Sixty-Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty-Four Only) along with current and future interest 9% from the date of filing the application till the date of realization, from the Defendants, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA if any, and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule property. The schedule property to the OA be the schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶46

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants and their other assets are liable for all such amounts due in loan accounts.

¶47

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶48

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

¶49

v) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of with this Final Order.

¶50

6 OA No.2010/2023

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

Rules, 1993.

¶54

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

¶55

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶56

ANNEXURES

¶57

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶58

AW-1: Sri.Chetan Mukherjee, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank.

¶59

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶60

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Exhibit Number
1.	Loan Application under Micro and Small Entrepreneur	A1
2.	Sanction letter dated 21.01.2020	A2
3.	Sanction letter dated 02.06.2020	A3
4.	On demand promissory Note in Form A-2 dated 23.01.2020	A4
5.	Letter of wavier in Form A-47 dated 23.01.2020	A5
6.	Continuing Agreement in form A-3 dated 23.01.2020	A6
7.	Composite deed of Hypothecation dated 23.01.2020 executed bydefendants.	A7
8.	Guarantee Agreement in form A-21 executed by defendant No.3	A8
9.	Guarantee Agreement in form A-21 executed by defendant No.2	A9

¶61

10.	Certificate of registration of charge created by the defendants in favour of applicant bank	A10
11.	On demand promissory Note in Form A-2 dated 10.06.2020 executed bydefendants	A11
12.	Letter of waiver in Form A-47 dated 10.06.2020 executed bythe defendants	A12
13.	Agreement relating to Term Loan in form A-109 dated 10.06.2020 executed bythe defendants	A13
14.	Guarantee Agreement in Form A-21 executed by defendant No.2	A14
15.	Guarantee Agreement in form A-21 executed by defendant No.3	A15
16.	Recall notice dated 15.04.2023	A16
17.	Statement of account and certificate	A17 to A19

Uco Bank v. Amaatra Health Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Amaatra Health Private Limited

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

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