Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Vybhav Enterprises

DRT27 Aug 2026OA/2653/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Bank of Baroda against two defendants for recovery of a working capital loan amount of approximately Rs.33 Lakhs. The court observed the defendants were absent and allowed the application with reduced interest at 11% p.a., directing issue of a Recovery Certificate executable against scheduled properties.

What did the court decide?

OA allowed. Recovery Certificate to be issued for Rs.33,01,718 plus 11% p.a. interest, executable against schedule property and jointly and severally against defendants.

Bank of Baroda versus Vybhav Enterprises — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of August, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.2653/2025

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Bank of Baroda Vijayanagar Branch No.441 & 504, New Kalidasa Road, Vijayanagar 1^st stage, Mysuru-570017 By its Chief Manager

¶7

… APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Manohar Gowda N B S/o. Sri. Balakrishna N P Aged about 33 years Proprietor of Vybhav Enterprises No.523, 10^th Cross, Mahadeshwara Extension Metagalli Post, Mysuru-570016

¶10

Sri. Balakrishna N P S/o. Sri. Late Putta Swamy N M Aged about 64 years No.523, 10^th Cross, Mahadeshwara Extension Metagalli Post, Mysuru-570016

¶11

...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Sri. Ganesha M R Defendants : Exparte

¶14

:FINAL ORDER:

¶15

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

¶16

OA. No.2653/2025

¶17

¶18

under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.33,01,718/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighteen only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed Working Capital loan of Rs.25,00,000/- on 24.08.2022 for the purpose of working capital requirement.

¶20

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.

¶21

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 account as NPA.

¶22

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.

¶23

OA. No.2653/2025

¶24

¶25

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 25.03.2026.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

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

¶30

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶33

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

¶34

OA. No.2653/2025

¶35

¶36

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

¶37

within the limitation.

¶38

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the

¶39

issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶40

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility

¶41

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 11.00%

¶42

p.a.(simple).

¶43

In the result, OA.No.2653/2025 stands allowed,

¶44

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.33,01,718/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighteen only) with further interest of 11.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from the

¶45

defendants, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to

¶46

be recovered by proceedings against schedule property. The

¶47

OA. No.2653/2025

¶48

¶49

property schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶53

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶57

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

¶58

with this Final Order.

¶59

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶60

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

¶61

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27^th Day of August 2026].

¶62

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA. No.2653/2025

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶67

AW-1: Sri. Srinivasa Rao, Chief Manager of the applicant bank.

¶68

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶69

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Date	Exhibit Number
1	Loan application for MSME loan	Nil	A1
2	Sanction communication to the borrower	24.08.2022	A2
3	Letter of sole proprietorship executed by 1^stdefendant	24.08.2022	A3
4	Composite hypothecation agreement executed by 11st defendant	24.08.2022	A4
5	Declaration cum undertaking cum authority	24.08.2022	A5
6	General undertaking executed by 1^st defendant	24.08.2022	A6
	Letter of authority in Bank’s favour to disclose or publish name of the	24.08.2022
7	borrower in case of default of loan/advances executed by 1^st defendant		A7
8	Letter of undertaking	24.08.2022	A8
9	Letter of continuing security	24.08.2022	A9
10	D P Note	24.08.2022	A10
11	General form of guarantee	24.08.2022	A11
12	Memorandum of deposit of title deeds executed by 2^nddefendant	19.09.2022	A12

¶70

OA. No.2653/2025

¶71

¶72

13	Legal notice	14.06.2025	A13
14	Returned postal cover of 1^stdefendant	-	A14
15	Postal acknowledgment of 2^nd defendant	-	A15
16	Statement of working capital loan account	-	A16

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Vybhav Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Vybhav Enterprises

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Shilpy

Bank of India versus Sh. Hardev Singh

Bank of India versus Amarjit Kaur

Santosh Kumari versus Central Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mokksh

Ms Tamanna Enterprises versus Indian Bank