Allowed

Union Bank of India v. G Ramesh

DRT31 Jul 2026OA/240/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT issued a recovery certificate against two respondents for an agricultural term loan default of Rs.26,02,030/-. The Tribunal allowed the present application, granting the bank recovery of principal with interest capped at 6.00% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued allowing recovery of Rs.26,02,030/- with 6% p.a. simple interest against respondents jointly, severally, and schedule property.

Union Bank of India versus G Ramesh — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 31^st Day of July, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA. No.240/2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) Branch at: Harohalli village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, Karnataka – 562135 Rep.by its Branch Senior Manager Sri. V. Ravi Kumar …

¶8

… APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Sri. G. Ramesh Aged major, S/o. Sri. Gangappa Residing at Madanayakanahalli village, Kundur Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District-562162

¶11

Sri. Sonnegowda Aged major S/o. Sri. Pillappa Residing at Harohalli Village, Kundru Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District-562162 ...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Sri. N G Ravi Kumar Defendants : Exparte

OA. No.240/2024

:FINAL ORDER:

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.26,02,030/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Two Thousand and Thirty only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed the Agricultural Term loan of Rs.10,00,000/- for the purpose of agricultural development.

¶19

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 mortgage over the Schedule property.

¶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 account 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. No.240/2024

¶23

¶24

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 20.12.2024.

¶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 A1 to A15 and got the same marked in evidence. 8. 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.

¶26

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: 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 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 applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. The

¶30

OA. No.240/2024

¶31

¶32

liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due are also

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility

¶36

was availed for agricultural 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 6.00%

¶37

p.a.(simple).

¶38

In the result, OA.No.240/2024 stands allowed,

¶39

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶40

of Rs.26,02,030/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Two Thousand and Thirty only) with further interest of 6.00% p.a.(simple) from the

¶41

date of filing OA till the realization from the defendants, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the

¶42

pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against defendants jointly, severally and personally

¶43

and also by proceeding against the schedule property including the

¶44

OA. No.240/2024

¶45

¶46

hypothecation movables. The schedule property to the OA be the

¶47

schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶55

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

¶56

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶57

in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶58

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

¶59

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA. No.240/2024

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶64

AW-1: Sri. G. Ramudu, Manager of the applicant bank.

¶65

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶66

Annexur	e EVENTS	Date of Document
A1	Loan Application	05-06-2014
A2	Agreement for Term loans	05-06-2014
A3	Common deed of Hypothecation of Crops/ Stocks by defendant No.1.	05-06-2014
A4	Demand promissory note	05-06-2014
A5	Registered Deed of Simple mortgage for aggregated limit of Rs.10,00,000/-	03-05-2014
A6	Guarantee Agreement executed by the defendant No.2	05-06-2014
A7	Acknowledgement of debt and liability by the borrower the defendant No.1.	20-04-2017
A8	Acknowledgement of debt and liability by the borrower the defendant No.2.	20-04-2017
A9	Acknowledgement of debt and liability by the borrower the defendant No.1.	30.03.2020
A10	Letter requesting conversion of crop loan to term loan / rephasing repayment schedule of term loan.	27.03.2017
A11	Advice of Rephasement Repayment schedule	27.03.2017
A12	Amendment Agreement to rephase repayment schedule	27.03.2017

¶67

OA. No.240/2024

¶68

¶69

A13	Statement of accounts from 27-10- 2017 to 18.11.2023 with certificate	18.11.2023
A14	Office copy of the legal notice	11.05.2023
A15	Postal receipts	15.05.2015

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. G Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. G Ramesh

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