Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Abdul Azeez

DRT16 Sept 2026OA/675/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An Original Application under Section 19 of the RDB Act was filed by a Bank for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against a defaulting borrower. The respondent ceased to appear despite summons. **Unrebutted evidence** established the loan, security interest, and default. The Tribunal allowed the application, **reducing the interest rate** to 12% simple per annum from the date of filing. The order directed recovery from the defendant personally and via attached properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 32,62,582.67 with further interest @12.00% per annum (simple) from the date of filing OA till realization, recoverable personally from the defendant and via schedule properties. Costs awarded to applicant.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Abdul Azeez — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 16^th Day of September, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.675/2024

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Bank of Maharashtra Branches at: Jilaxmipuram Branch, 14b Ground floor, Kalidasa Road, Jailaxmipuram, Mysore – 570 012

¶6

Represented by Senior Manager Mr. Gouri Shankar Gupta …APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Mr. Abdul Azeez S/o. Abdul Rashid Aged about 52 years Proprietor of M/s. R A Enterprises r/at: #384/3, Ground floor, Ashoka Road, Lashkar Mohalla, Mysore – 570 001

¶9

Also, at: #61/1, AJ block, 4^th cross, NR Mohalla, Mysore – 570 001

¶10

And also, at: #1305,

¶11

3^rd stage, Kesare, Mysore – 570 007 ...DEFENDANT

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Naveen Tao Defendant : Ex parte

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed

¶16

under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993

¶17

2 OA-675/2024

¶18

seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendant for Rs. 32,62,582.67/- (Rupees Thirty-Two Lakhs Sixty-Two Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty-Two and Paisa Sixty-Seven Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant is availed the following credit facilities:

¶20

Term loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs Only). For purchase of goods for business.

¶21

FITL of Rs. 5,52,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty-Two Thousand Only).

¶22

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

¶23

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan amount promptly and regularly, the defendant failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶24

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.

¶25

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set ex parte on 18.02.2025.

¶26

3 OA-675/2024

¶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

¶31

claim as against the defendant?

¶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 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 facilities as stated in the OA, creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the

¶35

accounts. The liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount

¶36

due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶37

4 OA-675/2024

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities is 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 that OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 12.00%(simple).

¶41

In the result, OA.No.675/2024, stands allowed, i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of

¶42

Rs. 32,62,582.67/- (Rupees Thirty-Two Lakhs Sixty-Two Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty-Two and Paisa Sixty-Seven Only) with further interest @12.00p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendant personally, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule properties. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶43

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant personally and his assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶44

5 OA-675/2024

¶45

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶46

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

¶47

receipt of the order

¶48

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

¶49

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶50

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

¶51

terms of this final order.

¶52

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶53

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

¶54

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶55

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 17^th Day of September, 2026].

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICE

¶58

ANNEXURES

¶59

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶60

AW-1: Hariprakash K V, S/o. Vaithiyanatham, Manager, of Applicant

¶61

Bank.

¶62

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶63

Exhi bits	date	Description of documents
A1	10.03.2020	Application for loan
A2	12.03.2020	Sanction memorandum
A3	13.03.2020	Letter of proprietorship

¶64

6 OA-675/2024

¶65

A4	13.03.2020	Request letter for making the credit facility available
A5	13.03.2020	Demand promissory note
A6	13.03.2020	Deed of hypothecation
A7	13.03.2020	Guarantee agreement
A8 & A9	13.03.2020	Two receipts for amount of loan received
A10	05.07.2021	Application for restructuring under resolution framework 2.0 MSME
A11	05.07.2021	Sanction of restructuring
A12	09.10.2023	Demand/recall notice
A13	-------	Bank statement for account no. 60354631367
A14	-------	Bank statement for account no. 60388041562
W	itness Examin	ed for the Defendant: -Nil -
Li	st of Docume	nts Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Maharashtra v. Abdul Azeez

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Abdul Azeez

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Uco Bank versus Dilip

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Ibrahim Fish Traders Traders and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Gaurav Kumar and Ors.

M S Arsh Enterprises versus State Bank of India

Alok Das versus Icici Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus K T Ramesh