Allowed

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited v. S v R Motors

DRT27 Mar 2026OA/732/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex parte hearing, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed OA No. 732/2024 filed by Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited against borrowers. The court found the loan claim and default uncontroverted. It directed issuance of a recovery certificate for the principal amount with interest capped at 12% simple p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 20,42,624.27 plus interest at 12% p.a. (simple); creditors to proceed against scheduled property.

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus S v R Motors — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of March, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.732/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited, Mysuru Branch, No. 331, N.S. Road, Devaraja Mohalla, Near Chopdas 299, Mysuru- 570 001, Represented by its Branch Manager, Mr. S. Suresh Kannan, S/o Thiru K. Selvaraj Nadar.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

M/s. S V R Motors, By its Proprietor, Mr. Dinesh. S, S/o Mr. ShekareGowda, No. 849/710/64, Bilikere Hobli, Gangenahalli Village, Mysore Dist- 571 103.

¶10

Mr. Dinesh. S, S/o Mr. ShekareGowda, Aged about 32 years, Proprietor of M/s S V R Motors, Residing at No. 849/710/64, Bilikere Hobli, Gangenahalli Village, Mysore Dist- 571 103.

¶11

Mr. Shekare Gowda, S/o. Puttaswamy Gowda, Aged about 63 years. Residing at No. 849/710/64, Bilikere Hobli, Gangenahalli Village, Mysore Dist- 571 103.

...DEFENDANTS

OA 732/2024

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶16

Applicant : Manjunatha S Defendants : Exparte

¶17

FINAL ORDER

¶18

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. 20,42,624.27 (Rupees Twenty Lakh Forty Two Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Four and Paise Twenty 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 defendants availed Overdraft (OD) (TMB Vyapari Scheme) working Capital facility of Rs. 25,00,000/(Rupees Twenty Five lakh Only).

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with take delivery letter, OD continuity letter, letter of hypothecation, guarantee covering letter and memorandum of deposit of title deeds.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

OA 732/2024

¶24

¶25

Despite, summons the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 09.07.2025.

¶26

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-19 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

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.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

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

¶30

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by

¶33

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 accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above

¶34

OA 732/2024

¶35

¶36

documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶37

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.

¶38

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are availed for Business 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 12.00% (simple).

¶39

In the result, OA.No.732/2024 stands allowed,

¶40

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 20,42,624.27 (Rupees Twenty Lakh Forty Two Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Four and Paise Twenty Seven Only) with further interest @12.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally & 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. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶41

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly,

¶42

OA 732/2024

¶43

¶44

severally & personally and their assets are liable for the amounts due

¶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

¶48

order.

¶49

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

¶50

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶51

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

¶52

of this final order.

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

Rules, 1993.

¶56

[Dictated to the Stenographer (AJ), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27^th Day of March, 2026].

¶57

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶58

PRESIDING OFFICER ANNEXURES

¶59

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶60

AW-1 – S. Suresh Kanan, Branch Manager, of Applicant Bank

¶61

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶62

Annexure	Particulars
A1	Take delivery letter- single dated 07.06.2022

¶63

OA 732/2024

¶64

¶65

A2	Proprietor declaration dated 07.06.2022
A3	Declaration cum undertaking dated 07.06.2022
A4	Letter of waiver dated 07.06.2022
A5	Negative lien letter 07.06.2022
A6	OD continuity letter dated 07.06.2022
A7	Letter of hypothecation book debt loans dated 07.06.2022
A8	Agreement for demand cash credit on the hypothecation of movables properties dated 07.06.2022
A9	Guarantee covering letter dated 07.06.2022
A10	Consent letter dated 07.06.2022
A11	Authorized letter to be obtained from the guarantor in Annxure-B dated 07.06.2022
A12	Undertaking letter to keep the security intact in case of mortgage of immovable property/ operties dated 07.06.2022
A13	Memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 19.07.2022
A14	Legal notice dated 21.09.2023
A15	Receipts (3Nos)
A16	Unserved RPAD Cover
A17	Unserved RPAD Cover
A18	Unserved RPAD Cover
A19	OD Facility statement of account A/c 50570005900041

¶66

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶67

-Nil -

¶68

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶69

-Nil –

¶70

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited v. S v R Motors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited v. S v R Motors

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 Rajendrakumar Jain

Inno Infra Pvt. Ltd. and 9 Others versus Indian Overseas Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Rajdeepsinh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Sher Singh

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Smt. Jaswinder Kaur

Hdfc Bank versus Ms Bandhav Filling Centre