Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Chethan

DRT24 Jun 2026OA/2054/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application (OA) for issuance of a Recovery Certificate under RDB Act, 1993. The debit note was unopposed. Liability was established for vehicle loan default. Certificate allowed with reduced interest at 10% simple.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate allowed for Rs. 26,15,908/- with interest @10% p.a. (simple) to recover jointly, severally and personally from defendants; balance due to attach on assets if sale proceeds insuffi

Union Bank of India versus Chethan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of June, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.2054/2023

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Union Bank of India Madivala Branch, No. 5 & 6, Ground Floor, SVR Privilege, Hosur Road, Madivala, Bengaluru – 560 068 …APPLICANT

¶6

AND:

¶7

Sri. Chethan S/o. Sri. Govindaraju Aged about 35 years R/at: No. 31, Ground Floor, 1^st floor, Sai Nisarga Layout, Near Nandana Hotel, Channa Sandra, Rr Nagar, Bengaluru – 500 098

¶8

And also, at: R/at: No. 19, Ashoka Street, 1^st Cross, 5^th main, Byraweswara layout, Hennur Bande, Near Hasanath College, Bengaluru – 560 043

¶9

And also, at: CG Constructions and interiors #33, 3^rd floor, Sai lotus, Above Kaveri Gramina Bank, Channa Sandra Road, Bengaluru – 560 098 ...DEFENDANTS

¶10

OA-2054/2023

¶11

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

Applicant Defendants

: Prabhu Rao C B

: Ex parte

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. 26,15,908/- (Rupees Twenty-Six Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Eight Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants are availed a Credit limit of Rs. 29,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Nine Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) for purchase of vehicle.

¶19

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 deed of hypothecation.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

OA-2054/2023

¶23

¶24

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 20.03.2025.

¶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-9 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶26

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.

¶27

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶28

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

¶29

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶30

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶31

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains

¶32

unrebutted as defendants remained ex parte. 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 the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount

¶33

due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the

¶34

OA-2054/2023

¶35

¶36

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 availed for Vehicle 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).

¶40

In the result, OA.No.2054/2023 stands allowed,

¶41

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of

¶42

Rs. 26,15,908/- (Rupees Twenty-Six Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Eight Only) with further interest @10% 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

¶43

the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule properties. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

OA-2054/2023

¶47

¶48

amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶49

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶50

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

¶51

receipt of the order.

¶52

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

¶53

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶54

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

¶55

terms of this final order.

¶56

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶57

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

¶58

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶59

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 24^th Day of June, 2026].

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

(T. RAJESH)

¶62

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶63

ANNEXURES

¶64

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶65

AW-1: V Moorthi, S/o. Vishwanathan T, Assist. General Manager, of

¶66

Applicant Bank.

¶67

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶68

Exhibit	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	True copy of loan application nil dated

¶69

OA-2054/2023

¶70

¶71

A2	True copy of the letter of sanction dated 15.09.2021
A3	True copy of demand promissory dated 21.09.2021
A4	True copy of letter of undertaking dated 21.09.2021
A5	True copy of continuity dated 21.09.2021
A6	True copy of simple agreement dated 21.09.2021
A7	True copy of interest agreement dated 21.09.2021
A8	True copy of deed of hypothecation dated 21.09.2021
A9	Statement of account along with certificate as per banker’s book evidence act

¶72

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶73

-Nil -

¶74

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶75

-Nil -

¶76

Sd/-

¶77

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. Chethan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Chethan

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