Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. T a Leelavathy

DRT27 Mar 2026OA/2659/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by a bank for a recovery certificate against four defendants. The defendants appeared ex parte. The Tribunal reduced the interest rate to 11% p.a. (simple) and directed recovery jointly and severally.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for ₹31,03,189 plus 11% p.a. (simple) interest from filing date until realization, recoverable jointly, severally, and personally from defendants and via schedule propertie

City Union Bank Limited versus T a Leelavathy — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of March, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA. No.2659/2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

City Union Bank, Basavanagudi Branch No.194, Subbarama Chetty Road, Near Netkalappa Cirle, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560024 Rep. by its Senior Manager Sri. N.S. Raghupathy … APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Smt. T.A. Leelavathy W/o. H.L. Venkatesh Proprietrix of M/s. Laharis Life Care At: No.16/1, 1^st Floor, 3^rd Main Road, Behind Katte Balaga, N.R. Colony, Bangalore–560019

¶10

Also R/at: R/at: No.11, 6^th Cross, Near Sindhi Hospital, Sampagiram Nagar, Woodland hotel, Wilson Garden, Bangalore–560027

¶11

Smt. L. Radha W/o. H.K. Lakshman Murthy Aged about 59 years R/at: No.11, 6^th Cross, Sampagiram Nagar, Woodland Hotel, Wilson Garden, Bangalore-560027

¶12

Sri. H. L. Venkatesh S/o. H.K. Lakshman Murthy

¶13

OA. No.2659/2024

¶14

¶15

R/at: No.11, 6^th Cross, Near Sindhi Hospital, Sampagiram Nagar, Woodland Hotel, Wilson Garden, Bangalore-560027

¶16

Smt. H.L. Shyamala W/o. B.A Ramesh R/at: No.11, 6^th Cross, Near Sindhi Hospital, Sampagiram Nagar, Woodland Hotel, Wilson Garden, Bangalore-560027

¶17

...DEFENDANTS

¶18

Counsel on record/appeared for: Applicant : Smt. Malini Vinay Defendants : Exparte

¶19

:FINAL ORDER:

¶20

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.31,03,189/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakh Three Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Nine only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶21

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed OD limit of Rs.20 lakhs on 06.04.2016, later enhanced to Rs.25.00 lakhs in 2017.

¶22

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

¶23

OA. No.2659/2024

¶24

¶25

mortgage over the Schedule.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 31.10.2025.

¶29

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 A14 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶30

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the

¶31

contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶32

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶33

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶34

claim as against the defendants?

¶35

OA. No.2659/2024

¶36

¶37

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶38

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶39

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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.

¶43

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility

¶44

was availed for business purpose and also that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view

¶45

of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 11.00%

p.a.(simple).

OA. No.2659/2024

In the result, OA.No.2659/2024 stands allowed,

¶50

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶51

of Rs.31,03,189/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakh Three Thousand One

¶52

Hundred and Eighty Nine only) with further interest of 11.00% 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 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 schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶53

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 other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan account.

¶54

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶58

OA. No.2659/2024

¶59

¶60

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

¶61

with this Final Order.

¶62

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶63

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

¶64

[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 March 2026].

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶67

ANNEXURES

¶68

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶69

AW-1: Sri. N.s. Raghupathy, Senior Branch Head of the applicant bank.

¶70

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶71

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Date	Exhibit Number
1	Sanction letter by applicant	06.04.2016	A1
2	Letter of continuity	06.05.2016	A2
3	Registered memorandum of extension of equitable mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds	05.05.2016	A3
4	Registered memorandum of extension of equitable mortgage by way of deposit of title deeds	16.09.2017	A4
5	Guarantee agreement	16.09.2017	A5
6	Guarantee agreement	16.09.2017	A6
7	Guarantee agreement	16.09.2017	A7

¶72

OA. No.2659/2024

¶73

8	Letter of revival	11.09.2020	A8
9	Confirmation of balance	11.09.2020	A9
10	Sanction ticket	11.06.2021	A10
11	Agreement of loan cum hypothecation	25.10.2021	A11
12	Letter of revival	09.06.2023	A12
13	Confirmation of balance	09.06.2023	A13
14	Statement of accounts along with certificate	-	A14

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

City Union Bank Limited v. T a Leelavathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. T a Leelavathy

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 Rajendrakumar Jain

Inno Infra Pvt. Ltd. and 9 Others versus Indian Overseas Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Rajdeepsinh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Sher Singh

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Smt. Jaswinder Kaur

Hdfc Bank versus Ms Bandhav Filling Centre