Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Satish Acharya and Another

DRT11 Sept 2026OA/2184/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA No.2184/2024, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Karnataka allowed an application filed by Bank of Baroda for a recovery certificate. The bank claimed Rs.36,96,252.15 plus interest against two defendants who defaulted on a home loan availed for vehicle purchase. As the defendants appeared ex parte, the Tribunal found the bank's evidence uncontroverted and sufficient. It allowed the recovery of the principal and a reduced interest of 8% p.a., permitting execution against the defendants jointly and severally and via sale of schedule property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.36,96,252.15 plus 8% p.a. simple interest; recovery to be effected jointly, severally, personally, and against schedule property.

Bank of Baroda versus Satish Acharya and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 11^th Day of September, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA. No.2184/2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Bank of Baroda Branch office at

¶8

Saibarakatte Branch, Udupi District

¶9

Rep.by its Branch Manager & PA Holder … APPLICANT

¶10

AND:

¶11

Mr. Satish Acharya S/o. Parameshwara Acharya Aged about 48 years

¶12

Mrs. Sandhya W/o. Satish Acharya Aged about 41 years

¶13

Both are R/at;

¶14

#Sowjanya Nilaya, Yathinatti, Shiriyara Village, Saibarakatte, Brahmhavara Hobli, Udupi Taluk & District

¶15

...DEFENDANTS

¶16

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶17

Applicant : Sri. Nithin Chandra M Defendants : Exparte

¶18

:FINAL ORDER:

¶19

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed

¶20

OA. No.2184/2024

¶21

¶22

under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.36,96,252.15 (Rupees Thirty Six Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Two and Fifteen Paisa only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶23

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed home loan facility of Rs.25,00,000/- on 17.04.2017.

¶24

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facility, the defendants executed necessary loan documents.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on

OA. No.2184/2024

26.03.2025.

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 A12 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶32

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.

¶33

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶34

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶35

claim as against the defendants?

¶36

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶37

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶38

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶39

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 facility as stated in the OA, creation of security interest as claimed by the

¶40

applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due are also

¶41

OA. No.2184/2024

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

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.

¶45

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was availed for vehicle purchase purpose and also that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal

¶46

in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 8.00% p.a.(simple).

¶47

In the result, OA.No.2184/2024 stands allowed,

¶48

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶49

of Rs.36,96,252.15 (Rupees Thirty Six Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Two and Fifteen Paisa only) with further interest of 8.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from the defendants, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed

¶50

the same to be recovered by proceeding against defendants jointly, severally and personally and also by proceeding against the schedule property. The schedule property to the OA be the

¶51

OA. No.2184/2024

¶52

¶53

schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶54

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

¶55

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants

¶56

jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable

¶57

for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶58

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶59

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

¶60

receipt of the order.

¶61

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

¶62

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶63

v) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of

¶64

with this Final Order.

¶65

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶66

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

¶67

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶68

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 11^th Day of September 2026].

¶69

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA. No.2184/2024

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶74

AW-1: Smt. K Sirisha B Yadav, Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

¶75

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶76

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Exhibit Number
1	Original copy of the sanction order dated 17.04.2017	A1
2	Original copy of het article of agreement dated 17.04.2017	A2
3	Original copy of the memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 15.04.2017	A3
4	Original copy of the statement of assets and liabilities for individuals dated 17.04.2017	A4
5	Original copy of the statement of assets and liabilities dated 17.04.2017	A5
6	Original copy of the affidavit dated 15.04.2017	A6
7	Original copy of the letter of repayment on 17.04.2017	A7
8	Original copy of the letter of acknowledgment of debt dated 29.03.2019 in respect of term loan	A8
9	Original copy of the letter of acknowledgment of debts dated 04.08.2021	A9
10	Original copy of the demand notice date d17.11.2022	A10
11	Lejla notice dated 18.07.2024 and postal receipts (2Nos)	A11, A11(a) & (b)
12	Certified statement of account	A12

¶77

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Satish Acharya and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Satish Acharya and Another

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

Punjab National Bank versus Sunil Rajbanshi and Ors.

Nachattar Singh versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Sri Ajay Raj versus Sir M Visvesvaraya Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Hadimba Agro Industry and Another versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Bank of India versus Ram Patidar

Smt Bhagya T C versus Canara Bank