Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Umesha M L

DRT22 May 2026OA/704/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for a Recovery Certificate of Rs.31,24,820/- with interest at 6% p.a. against two defaulted borrowers who were absent (ex-parte). The court noted the advance was for agricultural purposes and reduced interest accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.31,24,820/- with 6% per annum simple interest from filing date till realization, against defendants jointly and severally.

Bank of Baroda versus Umesha M L — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 22^nd Day of May, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.704/2023

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Bank of Baroda Branch office at: N.L Circle, Krathka Arcade, Holenarsepura Road, Hassan-573201

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. Umesha M L

¶9

S/o. M L Rame Gowda Malagondanahalli Village, Madenoor Post, Shanthigrama Hobli, Hassan District-573217

¶10

Sri. Swamy P S/o. Puttaswamaiah No.51, Malagondanahalli Village, Madenoor Post, Shanthigrama Hobli, Hassan District-573217

¶11

...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Ranjan Shetty Defendants : Exparte

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been

¶16

filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act

¶17

OA 704/2023

¶18

¶19

1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for

¶20

Rs.31,24,820/- (Rupees thirty one lakh twenty four thousand eight hundred twenty only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶21

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants availed the Poultry farm shed loan credit facilities of Rs.13,00,000/(Rupees thirteen lakh only) from the applicant bank.

¶22

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with composite hypothecation agreement, simple mortgage deed and form of guarantee in favor of the applicant bank.

¶23

It is further contended that, the defendants despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, failed in complying the same, resulting in defaults 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 defendants, they

¶26

OA 704/2023

¶27

¶28

failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 20.08.2025.

¶29

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-09 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶30

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and the proof affidavit.

¶31

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶32

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶33

OA claim as against the defendants?

¶34

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶35

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶36

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶37

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

¶38

OA 704/2023

¶39

¶40

the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts.

¶41

The liability of the defendants and the claim as the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶42

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this 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 by defendants for agricultural purpose and also that 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 @6% p.a. (Simple).

¶44

In the result, OA.No.704/2023, stands allowed,

¶45

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.31,24,820/- (Rupees thirty one lakh twenty four thousand eight hundred twenty only) with further interest @6% p.a. (Simple),

¶46

from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants

¶47

jointly severally and personally after giving credit to all the

¶48

OA 704/2023

¶49

¶50

amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceedings against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶51

(ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendants

¶52

jointly severally and personally and their other assets are liable

¶53

to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶54

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶58

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

¶59

in terms of this final order.

¶60

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶61

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

¶62

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶63

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 22^nd day of May, 2026].

¶64

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA 704/2023

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶69

AW-1: Sri. Mouli Raj, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶70

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶71

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	25.10.2014	Loan Application pertaining to poultry farm shed loan
A2	29.10.2014	Sanction of credit facility memo communication pertaining to Poultry farm shed loan of Rs.13 lakhs
A3	29.10.2014	Composite hypothecation agreement for agricultural finance pertaining to Poultry farm shed loan Rs.13 lakhs
A4	29.10.2014	Demand Promissory pertaining to Poultry farm shed loan of Rs.13 lakhs
A5	29.10.2014	Simple mortgage deed, registered as document No. HSN-1-05887-2014-15 CD No.HSND256, book-1 in the sub registrar hassan executed by D1
A6	29.10.2014	General Form of guarantee pertaining to Poultry farm shed loan executed by D2
A7	03.04.2017 31.03.2020	Letter of acknowledgement of debt executed by D1 pertaining to Poultry farm shed loan of Rs.13 lakhs
A8	18.01.2021	Legal Notice addressed to executed by D1 demanding repayment the outstanding balance in loan accounts along with postal receipt and returned undelivered cover
A9		Statement of account A/c No.30590600000480

¶72

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

-Nil -

-Nil -

Sd/

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶77

7 OA 704/2023

Bank of Baroda v. Umesha M L

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Umesha M L

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

Gurdeep Singh versus Hdfc Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Gomati Devi

Mr Victor Serrao versus Karnataka Bank Limited

M/S Amar Singh and Sons Tree Nuts LLP versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Poonam Devi versus India Shelter Finance Corporation Limited

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Ms Yo Yatra Tours and Travels Private Limited