Allowed

Canara Bank v. Srlb Food Products Pvt. Ltd.

DRT30 Jan 2026OA/271/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debits Recovery Tribunal allowed an application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for the issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The court found the defendants liable for a loan default of Rs. 72,52,000, reducing interest to 12% simple p.a., and directed the issuance of the certificate for execution.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 72,52,000 plus 12% simple interest to be recovered jointly, severally, and personally from defendants.

Canara Bank versus Srlb Food Products Pvt. Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA

¶2

AT BENGALURU

¶3

Dated this 30^th Day of January, 2026

¶4

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶5

Presiding Officer OA.No.271/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Canara Bank Head office at: JC road, Bengaluru Branch office at: NR Colony Branch, No. 1, 1^st Main Road, NR Colony, Bangalore – 560 019 …APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

M/s. SRLB Food Products Pvt. Ltd Plot no. 53 & 54, KIADB industrial Area, Harohalli, Ramanagara District – 562 112 Represented By its Directors,

¶10

Mr. Bharath Kumar B R S/o. Sri. Ramalingaiah Aged about 24 years Director, M/s. SRLD Food Products Pvt. Ltd R/a. no. 251, 4^th main, Near Chaiyanya Techo College, Nandakumar Layout, Arehalli, Subramanyapura, Bangalore – 560 061

¶11

Smt. Lakshamma M R W/o. Sri. N M Lakshmi Prasad Aged about 80 years Director, M/s. SRLD Food Products Pvt. Ltd R/a no. 12, 12^th cross, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore – 560 086

¶12

2 OA-271/2022

¶13

Smt. Sheela Prasad N L W/o. Sri. H E Purushothamma Aged about 47 years Director, M/s. SRLD Food Products Pvt. Ltd R/a. no. 167-12, 3^rd floor, 12^th cross, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore – 560 086 ...DEFENDANTS

¶14

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶15

Applicant : Rohan Tigadi Defendants : Ex parte

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 72,52,000/- (Rupees Seventy Two Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants are availed an overdraft facility of Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Only) for purpose of credit facility.

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed the necessary loan document along with deed of hypothecation.

¶20

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan amount promptly and regularly, the

¶21

3 OA-271/2022

¶22

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

¶24

After filing of the OA, summons was taken out to the defendants through RPAD and was served. The defendants then entered appearance and filed vakalat through counsel. Though sufficient opportunities were given to the defendants they have not chosen to file the written statement within stipulated time. When the case came up for hearing on 20.01.2026, in spite of granting sufficient time, the defendants neither appeared nor filed written statement. Hence, the written statement of defendants closed.

¶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 A-1 to A-13 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶26

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.

¶27

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶28

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶29

claim as against the defendants?

¶30

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶31

4 OA-271/2022

¶32

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶33

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 facility as stated in the OA, creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. 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 within the limitation.

¶34

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal

¶35

is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶36

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility are availed for Business purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal of the view

¶37

that OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 12.00%(simple).

¶38

In the result, OA.No.271/2022 stands allowed,

¶39

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of

¶40

Rs. 72,52,000/- (Rupees Seventy Two Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand

¶41

Only) with further interest @12.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of

¶42

5 OA-271/2022

¶43

filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally and

¶44

personally, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and

¶45

received during the pendency of the OA.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶49

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶53

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

¶54

terms of this final order.

¶55

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶56

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

¶57

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶58

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

¶59

the Open Court, this the 30^th Day of January, 2026].

¶60

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶61

6 OA-271/2022

¶62

ANNEXURES

¶63

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶64

AW-1: Mr. Abhishek Anand, S/o. Mr. Arun Kumar Sinha, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶65

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶66

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	12.11.2020	Sanction memorandum
A2	13.11.2020	Request for OD
A3	13.11.2020	Agreement cum deed of hypothecation
A4	13.11.2020	Guarantee covering letter
A5	13.11.2020	Guarantee agreement
A6	13.11.2020	Guarantee covering letter
A7	13.11.2020	Guarantee agreement
A8	13.11.2020	Guarantee covering letter
A9	13.11.2020	Guarantee agreement
A10	13.11.2020	Letter of undertaking
A11	13.11.2020	Common hypothecation agreement
A12	13.11.2022	Legal notice
A13	-------	Account extract

¶67

Witness Examined for the Defendants: List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

-Nil -

-Nil -

Sd/-

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Srlb Food Products Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Srlb Food Products Pvt. Ltd.

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

S Rajeswari versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Kishan Mitrapal Chawla Dairy

Bank of India versus Ms Narmada Pipes

Ms Khajuria Constructions and Another versus State Bank of India

Raj Kumar Baniya versus State Bank of India

Smt Firoja Begum versus Indian Bank