Allowed

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Mahendra Kumar Swami

DRT30 Jun 2026OA/505/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed under Section 19 of the RDB Act for a recovery certificate of Rs. 48,59,618.68. The Tribunal granted the claim despite defendants being absent, noting that loan documents and defaults were evident. Interest was reduced to 8% simple per annum.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of recovery certificate for Rs. 48,59,618.68 plus interest at 8% per annum simple from filing date; defendants jointly and severally liable; proceeds of scheduled property to be applied.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Mahendra Kumar Swami — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 30^th Day of June, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.505/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M/S. Karnataka Bank Ltd. Ashokanagara Branch Wood Street, Bengaluru. Represented by its Power of Attorney Holder, Branch Manager.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Mahendra Kumar Swami S/o Banshidhar Swami Aged about 53 Years, R/at Ledi, Nagaur Jaswanthgarh Rajasthan.

¶10

2. Smt. Hulasi Devi,

¶11

W/o Mahendra Kumar Swami, Aged about 44 years, No.1063, Koramangala, Near Federal bank, 7^th Main Road, 3^rd Block, Bengaluru.

¶12

B. Lingappa S/o B. Boraiah Aged about 50 years

¶13

Smt. Prema W/o B. Lingappa Aged about 40 years

¶14

Chaithra D/o B. Lingappa Aged about 25 years

¶15

Harsha S/o B. Lingappa

¶16

2 505/2022

¶17

Aged about 22 years,

¶18

All are residing at No. 10, Lingappa Block Ramakrishnaiah Street, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore-10.

¶19

Director Mr. Gopal Shindhe M/s Cyma Investments Pvt. Ltd. Having Regd. Office at No. 204, Rajani Gandha, Garden Apartments, 21, Vittal Malya Road, Bangaluru-560 001.

¶20

Director Mr. Gopal Shindhe M/s Parth Constructions Pvt. Ltd Having Reg. Office at, No. 204, Rajani Gandha Garden Apartments 1, Vittal Malya Road, Bangalore-560 001.

¶21

...DEFENDANTS

¶22

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶23

Applicant : Sriharsha R Defendants : Exparte

¶24

FINAL ORDER

¶25

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance

¶26

of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 48,59,618.68/(Rupees Forty Eight lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Six hundred Eighteen and Sixty Eight Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶27

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant availed the term Loan credit facility of Rs. 87,00,000/- from the applicant bank on 11.03.2019.

¶28

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed

¶29

3 505/2022

¶30

loans, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with Term Loan agreement, Tripartite Agreement, Demand Letter.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

Despite, taking out summons the defendants failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 17.10.2025.

¶34

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-9 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶35

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.

¶36

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶37

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

¶38

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶39

4 505/2022

¶40

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶41

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 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 of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶42

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

¶43

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are availed for purchases of residential flat/ apartment 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 8.00%

¶44

(simple).

¶45

In the result, OA.No.505/2022, stands allowed,

¶46

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.

¶47

5 505/2022

¶48

48,59,618.68/- (Rupees Forty Eight Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Six

¶49

Hundred Eighteen and Paise Sixty Eight Only) with further interest @8.00 % 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.

¶50

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 assets are liable for the amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶54

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

6 505/2022

¶58

Rules, 1993.

¶59

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

¶60

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

¶61

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶62

¶63

ANNEXURES

¶64

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶65

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

¶66

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶67

Annexure	Date	List of Documents
A1	11.03.2019	Loan Sanction order
A2	19.03.2019	Declaration by first defendant
A3	19.03.2019	Declaration by second defendant
A4	19.03.2019	Term Loan Agreement
A5	05.12.2018	Sale Agreement in favour of first defendant
A6	19.03.2019	Tripartite Agreement
A7	16.03.2019	Letter addressed by 8^thdefendant
A8	19.03.2019	Demand letter addressed by 8^thdefendant
A9	17.03.2022	Statement of accounts with certificate

¶68

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

¶69

-Nil –

¶70

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶71

7 505/2022

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Mahendra Kumar Swami

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Mahendra Kumar Swami

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Anugya Enterprises

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) versus M/s Maa Sharde Agritech

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Balajee Coal Depot

Manoj Kumar Sharma versus Punjab National Bank

Sri Ram Bhagat Sharma versus Icici Bank Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Niraj Marble and Tiles and Ors.