Allowed

Idbi Bank v. Gouse Khan And Others

DRT11 Sept 2026OA/57/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by IDBI Bank Limited against multiple respondents for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The bank claimed Rs. 35.76 lakhs under a Home Loan and Tripartite Agreement. The respondents appeared ex-parte, leaving the bank's evidence uncontroverted. The Tribunal reduced the interest rate to 8% and granted recovery from joint and several liability of the borrowers and partners.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate for Rs. 35,76,884/- consisting of principal with 8.00% simple interest from filing date. Recovery from borrowers (jointly/severally/personally) and builder/partners against schedule properties and other assets if proceeds insufficient.

Idbi Bank versus Gouse Khan And Others — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 11^th Day of September, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.57/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

The IDBI Bank limited A Retail Recovery Branch office at No. 58, Mission Road, Bangalore-560027. Represented Through its Deputy General manager, Sri. G. Basanth Chakravarthy.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Mr. Gouse Khan S/o Mr. Dowlath Khan Aged about 44 years, No. 234, 3^rd Floor, 1^st Main, 2^nd Block, Devasandra Main Road, K R Puram, Bangalore-560036.

¶10

Mr. Dowlath Khan S/o Mr. Darya Khan Aged about 44 years, No. 234, 3^rd Floor, 1^st Main, 2^nd Block, Devasandra Main Road, K R Puram, Bangalore-560036.

¶11

M/s Landstar Homes Partnership Firm represented by partners a) Mr. K. Uma mahaeshswara Reddy b) Mrs. Lakhshmi Rangaswamy No. H-108, Sriram Spurti Aecs layout Brookefields Bangalore-560037.

¶12

2 57/2024

¶13

Mr. K Uma Maheshwara Reddy S/o Mr. K Veera Reddy Aged about 44 years, “RAVANA” No. 330/2, 1^st Cross, S R Layout, Mrugesh Palya Bangalore-560017.

¶14

Mrs. Lakshmi Rangaswamy W/o Mr. Chennan Rangaswamy Aged about 41 years, # H-108, Sriram Spurthi Aecs Layout Brooke Fields Kundalahalli Bangalore- 560037.

¶15

Mrs. R. Audi Lakshmi W/o Mr R Pratap Kumar Reddy Aged about 48years, R/at Flat no. A-4 Samhita Ritz Apartment Rahath Bagh, Nagavarapalya CV Raman Nagar Post Bangalore-560093.

¶16

Mrs. I Kavamma W/o Late Sri. Venka Reddy Aged about 74 years, R/at No. 1-134, old Town, Kanigiri Prakasham District

¶17

Mr. K Parameshwara Reddy S/o Sri. Sundararama Reddy Aged about 56 years, R/at No. 2-3-140/A Blossom House, Adarsh Nagar, Road No.1, Nagole, Hyderabad.

¶18

...DEFENDANTS

¶19

3 57/2024

¶20

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶21

Applicant : T P Muthanna Defendants : Exparte

¶22

FINAL ORDER

¶23

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. 35,76,884/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Eight hundred Eighty Four Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶24

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants No.1 & 2 are joint Borrowers, the defendant No.3 is the developer/ builder and the defendants No. 4 &5 are the partners of the defendant No.3 Firm, Defendant No.6 to 8 are the landoweners in the Project called as ‘Pinnacle’. Defendant No. 1 & 2 availed the following credit facilities from the applicant bank:-

¶25

I. Home Loan of a sum of Rs. 38,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakh Only).

¶26

II. Loan for insurance premium of sum of Rs. 55,089/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Eighty Nine Only) on 29.02.2020.

¶27

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants No. 1 the borrower, defendant No.3 the builder & developer and the Bank have entered into Tripartite agreement on 29.02.2020.

¶28

4 57/2024

¶29

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with Loan Sanction Letter, Home Loan Agreement, Power of Attorney, Indemnity Bond.

¶30

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, 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.

¶31

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.

¶32

Despite, taking out summons the defendants failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 07.04.2025.

¶33

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-17 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶34

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.

¶35

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶36

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

¶37

5 57/2024

¶38

as against the defendants?

¶39

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶40

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶41

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application 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 facilities 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 was availed for Housing 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% (simple).

¶44

In the result, OA.No.57/2024, stands allowed,

¶45

6 57/2024

¶46

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

¶47

35,76,884/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Four Only) consisting of:

¶48

a. Rs.35,37,900/- with further interest of 8.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from the defendants jointly and severally;

¶49

b. Rs.38,984/- with further interest of 8.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from the defendant No.1 & 2 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 applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶52

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

¶53

7 57/2024

¶54

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

¶55

of this final order.

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

Rules, 1993.

¶59

[Dictated to the Stenographer (DV), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 11^th Day of September, 2026].

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

(T. RAJESH)

¶62

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶63

ANNEXURES

¶64

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶65

AW-1: P Prem Swaroop, Manager of the applicant Bank

¶66

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶67

Annexure	Date	List of Documents
A1	12.02.2020	Copy of the Home Loan Application
A2	29.08.2020	Copy of the Loan for Insurance Premium Application Form
A3	29.02.2020	Copy of Loan Sanction Letter
A4	29.02.2020	Copy of the Home Loan Agreement
A5	29.02.2020	Copy of Power of Attorney
A6	29.02.2020	Copy of the Affidavit
A7	29.02.2020	Copy of the Affidavit
A8	29.02.2020	Copy of the Indemnity Bond
A9	29.02.2020	Copy of the Declaration and Under taking

¶68

8 57/2024

¶69

A10	29.02.2020	Copy of the Loan for Insurance Premium Agreement
A11	11.02.2020	Copy of the Agreement for Sale cum Construction Agreement
A12	29.02.2020	Copy of the Tripartite Agreement executed by the Defendants and Applicant Bank
A13	03.07.2023	Copy of the Loan Recall Notice to the Defendant No.1
A14	30.08.2023	Copy of the Notice issued to the Defendant No.3
A15	30.08.2023	Copy of the Notice issued to the Defendant No.6 to 8
A16	--	Copy of the Statement of Account Certified under Banker’s Book of Evidence Act- Showing the Outstanding liability under Home Loan Account No. 0024675100028866
A17	--	Copy of the Statement of Account Certified under Banker’s Book of Evidence Act- Showing the Outstanding liability under Home Loan Account No. 0024675100028884

¶70

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

¶71

-Nil -

¶72

-Nil –

¶73

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶74

9 57/2024

Idbi Bank v. Gouse Khan And Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idbi Bank v. Gouse Khan And Others

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

Punjab National Bank versus Sunil Rajbanshi and Ors.

Nachattar Singh versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Sri Ajay Raj versus Sir M Visvesvaraya Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Hadimba Agro Industry and Another versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Bank of India versus Ram Patidar

Smt Bhagya T C versus Canara Bank