Original Application filed under RDB Act seeking recovery certificate. Court rejected defendants' vague claims of theft and pandemic disruption due to lack of evidence. Bank proved loan documents and default. Recovery Certificate allowed.
Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 41,92,607/- with future interest at 8% p.a. simple rate; costs awarded to applicant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU
Dated this 22nd Day of May, 2026
Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer
OA.No.317/2022
BETWEEN:
Karnataka Bank Ltd., Basavanagudi Branch, Situated at No. 53, Subbarama Chetty Road, Nettakallappa Circle, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru -560004, Rep. by its Senior Manager,
…APPLICANT
AND:
A proprietorship Concern of Smt. Chaitra, Having its place of Business at No.14-19, 40/7, 10th ‘A’ Cross, Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, Ittamadu, B. S. K. 3rd Stage, Bengaluru -560085.
W/o. Shri. M. Praveen, Residing at Apartment No. D-203, Sri Venkatachala Residency, Nos. 128/129, Arehalli, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru -560061.
...DEFENDANTS
Counsel on record/appeared for:
Applicant : S R Harish Kumar Defendants : Ravi & Ravi
FINAL ORDER
section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance
OA 317/2022
2
of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 41,92,607/- (Rupees forty-one lakh ninetytwo thousand six hundred and seven only) with further interest thereon and cost from the Defendants.
OA 317/2022
3
OA in the light of documentary evidence and the proof affidavit.
and evidence:
i) Whether the applicant succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the Defendants?
ii) If so, to what extent?
Both these issues are gone into and decided together.
OA 317/2022
4
unsupported by any documentary evidence such as police complaint, FIR, stock register, insurance claim, or any other contemporaneous material, and therefore remains unsubstantiated. The allegation of theft is also not supported by any credible particulars and appears to be an afterthought raised only to evade contractual liability. In any event, such circumstances do not discharge the Defendants from their obligation to repay the duly availed credit facilities as per agreed terms. The contention that the Defendants are not willful defaulters is also untenable in view of the admitted availment of credit facility and failure to service the debt. Accordingly, the said objections are rejected.
OA 317/2022
5
of their contentions. Hence, this Tribunal is of the view that the evidence adduced by the Applicant remains uncontroverted. The documents produced by the Applicant are admissible in evidence and stand duly proved.
i) The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 41,92,607/- (Rupees forty-one lakh ninety-two thousand six hundred and seven only) along with pendente lite and future interest of 8.00% p.a. (simple), from the date of filing of the OA till the realization, from the Defendants jointly, severally and personally after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA if any, and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the defendants personally and their assets including the schedule movable
OA 317/2022
6
property. Property schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery
Certificate.
ii) The Applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings for
which Applicant to file cost memo within seven days from the date of
receipt of the order.
iii) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and
transferred to Recovery for execution.
iv) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms
of this final order.
of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.
(Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of May, 2026)
Sd/-
(T. RAJESH)
PRESIDING OFFICER
ANNEXURES
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:
AW-1: Sree Harsha M. B, Senior Manager, of Applicant Bank.
Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:
| Exhibit | Date | Particulars of Documents |
|---|---|---|
| Nos. | ||
| A1 | 25.04.2019 | Sanction letter |
| A2 | 27.05.2019 | Request letter |
OA 317/2022
7
| A3 | -- | Account opening form |
|---|---|---|
| A4 | 27.05.2019 | Letter of request for renewal |
| A5 | 27.05.2019 | Demand promissory note |
| A6 | 27.05.2019 | Take Delivery letter |
| A7 | 27.05.2019 | Declaration |
| A8 | 27.05.2019 | Letter of authority |
| A9 | 27.05.2019 | Declaration letter |
| A10 | 27.05.2019 | Hypothecation agreement |
| A11 | 27.05.2019 | General power of attorney |
| A12 | -- | Certified statement of account |
| A13 | 24.11.2021 | Notice |
| A14 & A15 |
24.11.2021 | Two postal receipts |
| A16 | -- | 1 Unserved postal envelopment |
| A17 | 08.12.2021 | Reply |
Witness Examined for the Defendants:
DW1- S. Chaitra, Defendant No.2
List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil -
Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant succeeded in proving the original application claim as against the defendants?
Whether the defendants' contentions regarding pandemic disruption and theft of goods were substantiated?
Whether the bank is entitled to recovery of the claimed sum with interest?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Karnataka Bank Ltd., Basavanagudi Branch
T. RAJESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
