Allowed

Union Bank of India v. B S Savitha

DRT24 Feb 2026OA/2488/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an original application filed by Union Bank of India for a recovery certificate against defendants for agricultural loans. The Opposition was ex parte. The Tribunal found the claim admissible and within limitation, granting recovery with reduced simple interest of 6%.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 32,15,404.40 with further interest @6.00% p.a. (simple) from filing date till realization, recoverable jointly, severally and personally, and against schedule

Union Bank of India versus B S Savitha — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of February, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.2488/2024

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Union Bank of India Head office at: No.239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Branch office at: No. 101, opp. Govt. Maternity Hospital Main Road, Kanakapura, Ramanagara District – 562 117

¶6

Represented by its Branch Manager

¶7

Mr. Praveen Chandra Kumath C …APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Mrs. B S Savitha W/o. P Niranjan Shankar Aged about 48 years R/at: no. 35/4, 38-A cross, 8^th block, Jaynagar, Bangalore – 560 070

¶10

Mr. P Niranjan Shankar S/o. V K Prabhakar Aged about 50 years R/at: no. 35/4, 38-A cross, 8^th block, Jaynagar, Bangalore – 560 070 ...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : Shivashankar A Defendants : Ex part

OA-2488/2024

FINAL ORDER

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking for issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 32,15,404.40/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred and Four and Paisa Forty Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶17

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants are availed the following credit facilities:

¶18

Crop Kisan Form Mechanization (CKFM) loan of Rs. 9,00,000/(Rupees Nine Lakhs Only) for purpose of fencing & banana crop.

¶19

Agricultural Term loan of Rs. 7,25,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Only) for purpose of agricultural development.

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above

¶21

availed loans, the defendants executed the necessary loan document along with simple mortgage deed.

¶22

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

¶23

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this

¶24

Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

¶25

OA-2488/2024

¶26

¶27

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 26.09.2025.

¶28

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-19 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶29

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.

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶31

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

¶32

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶33

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶34

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains 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 facilities as stated in the OA,

¶35

creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the

¶36

accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount

¶37

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

¶38

OA-2488/2024

¶39

¶40

applicant is well within the limitation.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶44

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are availed for Agricultural purpose also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal is the view that the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

¶45

In the result, OA.No.2488/2024 stands allowed,

¶46

The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 32,15,404.40/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Four Hundred and Four and Paisa Forty Only) with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the

¶47

defendants jointly, severally and personally, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule properties. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶48

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their assets are liable for all such

¶49

OA-2488/2024

¶50

¶51

amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶52

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶56

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

¶57

terms of this final order.

¶58

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶59

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

¶60

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶61

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in

¶62

the Open Court, this the 24^th Day of February, 2026].

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

(T. RAJESH)

¶65

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶66

ANNEXURES

¶67

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶68

AW-1 Sandesh T, S/o. Narasimha B, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶69

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶70

Exhibit	Particulars of Documents
Nos.

¶71

OA-2488/2024

¶72

¶73

A1 & A2	Loan application dated 15.07.2013, issued by applicant/plaintiff bank and demand promissory note dated 15.07.2013 executed by the first defendant
A3	Take delivery letter to DPN dated 15.07.2013 executed by the first defendant
A4	Agreement of term loan dated 15.07.2013 executed by the first defendant
A5	Common deed of hypothecation of movables/asset/debts dated 15.07.2013 executed by first defendant
A6	Common deed of hypothecation of crops/stocks dated 15.07.2013 executed by first defendant
A7	Deed of simple mortgage dated 04.07.2013 executed by the first defendant
A8	Guarantee agreement dated 15.07.2013 executed by the defendants
A9 & A10	Acknowledgement of debt/liability dated 05.07.2016 and dated 26.06.2019 executed by the defendant
A11	Statement of account extract
A12 & A13	Loan application dated 07.03.2015 and demand promissory note dated 09.03.2015 executed by the defendants
A14	Take delivery letter to DPN dated 09.03.2015 executed by the defendants
A15	Agreement of term loan dated 15.07.2013 executed by the first defendant
A16	Letter of undertaking dated 09.03.2015 executed by the defendants
A17	Common deed of hypothecation of crops/stocks dated 09.03.2015 executed by first defendants
A18	Deed of simple mortgage dated 27.02.2015 executed by the defendant
A19	Statement of account extract

¶74

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil -

¶75

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶76

-Nil -

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Union Bank of India v. B S Savitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. B S Savitha

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

Union Bank of India versus Mr Mohammad Akram S/O Mohammad Quasam

Samiran Roy versus Bank of Baroda

State Bank of India versus Hetali Roshan Fernandes

Ms Tulsi Mineral Water versus State Bank of India

Ms Rehana Enterprise and Anr. versus Bank of Baroda

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank versus Gunderao