Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Chikkaputtegowda

DRT24 Jun 2026OA/437/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for issuance of Recovery Certificate against three defendants for an agricultural loan default of Rs. 61.76 lakhs. Due to the defendants' default and无助 appearance, the evidence was accepted, and the certificate was issued with reduced interest of 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 61,76,279.80 with interest at 6% p.a. simple from date of filing till realization, recoverable jointly and severally jointly from defendants and scheduled property.

Union Bank of India versus Chikkaputtegowda — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of June, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA.No.437/2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Union Bank of India. Channapatna Branch, No. 2191/4-10, B.M. Road, Kuvempunagar, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara Dist-562 160. Represented by its Senior Manager, Mr. Ravi Ranjan.

¶8

…APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Mr. Chikkaputtegowda S/o Siddegowda Aged about 78 years, R/at Menasiganahalli Village,

¶11

Chennapatna Taluk, Ramanagara Dist - 562160.

¶12

Mr. Likesh

¶13

S/o Chikkaputtegowda Aged about 49 years, R/at Menasiganahalli Village, Chennapatna Taluk, Ramanagara Dist - 562160.

¶14

Mr. Ankappagowda S/o Chikkaputtegowda Aged about 42 years, R/at Menasiganahalli Village, Chennapatna Taluk, Ramanagara Dist - 562160. ...DEFENDANTS

¶15

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶16

Applicant : Shivashankara A Defendants : Exparte

¶17

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

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. 61,76,279.80/(Rupees Sixty One lakh Seventy Six Thousand Two hundred Seventy Nine and Paise Eighty Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant availed the Crop HiTech Floriculture Loan credit facility of Rs. 33,65,000/- from the applicant bank on 26.04.2016.

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with Agreement for Term Loan, Demand Promissory Note, Common Deed of Hypothecation of Movables, Deed of Simple Mortgage.

¶22

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan account 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 Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

¶24

Despite, taking out summons the defendants failed to appear,

¶25

¶26

resulting the defendants being set exparte on 26.11.2025.

¶27

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-14 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶28

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.

¶29

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶30

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim

¶31

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 defendant 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 Mortgage and Hypothecation as claimed by the applicant bank 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

¶35

¶36

of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶37

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

¶38

find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶39

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility are availed for agriculture purpose and also that the 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 6.00% (simple).

¶40

In the result, OA.No.437/2023, stands allowed,

¶41

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 61,76,279.80/- (Rupees Sixty One Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Nine and Paise Eighty Only) with further interest @ 6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally and personally, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against schedule property. Schedule Properties to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

¶45

under the loan accounts.

¶46

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings which

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶50

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

¶51

of this final order.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

Rules, 1993.

¶55

[Dictated to the Stenographer (DV), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 24^th Day of June, 2026].

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

(T. RAJESH)

¶58

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶59

ANNEXURES

¶60

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶61

AW-1: Kumuda N, Deputy Branch Manager of the applicant Bank

¶62

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶63

Annexure	Date	List of Documents
A1	04.03.2020	Gazette Notification (Amalgamation for Andhra Bank
		& Corporation Bank into Union Bank of India)
A1	26.04.2016	Loan Application submitted by defendants

¶64

¶65

A2	26.04.2016	Sanction letter issued by Applicant Bank
A3	26.04.2016	Agreement for Term Loan executed by defendant
A4	26.04.2016	Demand Promissory Note executed by defendant
A5	26.04.2016	Take Delivery letter to DPN executed by defendant
A6	26.04.2016	Letter of Undertaking executed by defendant in favour of Applicant bank
A7	26.04.2016	Common Deed of Hypothecation of Movables/ Assets / debts Submitted by the defendants
A8	26.04.2016	Common Deed of Hypothecation of Crops/ Stocks executed by defendants
A9	25.04.2016	Deed of Simple Mortgage executed by defendant
A10	25.04.2016	Memorandum Agreement executed by Third defendant
A11	31.12.2018	Demand Promissory Note executed by first defendant
A12	31.12.2018	Take Delivery Letter to DPN executed by first defendant
--	30.11.2021	Composite debt Balance Confirmation executed by first defendant
A13	20.06.2022	Legal Notice issued by Applicant / Plaintiff Bank
A14	---	Certified Copy of the Statement of Account bearing No. 56093100060340

¶66

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil - List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil –

¶67

-Nil -

¶68

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶69

Union Bank of India v. Chikkaputtegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Chikkaputtegowda

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 Haja Majmudeen Abdul Razak

Union Bank of India versus M/s Pallavi Pharma

Ms Joysri Enterprises versus Indian Bank

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Haji Mohammad Sultan Sofi

Ellaquai Dehati Bank versus Ghulam Rasool Mir

Keshav Prasad Choubey versus Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Limited