Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Purushothama

DRT20 Aug 2026OA/749/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Union Bank of India for issuerance of a Recovery Certificate against defendants who defaulted on a housing loan. The court reduced the applicable interest rate to 8.00% per annum (simple).

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 70,46,629.51 plus 8% simple interest from date of filing, recoverable from defendants jointly, severally and personally.

Union Bank of India versus Purushothama — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 20^th Day of August, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.749/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Union Bank of India HSR Layout Branch, No. 1136, 17^th Cross, 80 feet Road, HSR Layout-7^th Sector, Bangalore-560102. Represented by its Branch Manager, Ritesh Agarwal.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Purushothama D S/o Doddamuniyappa, Aged 49 years, No. 362, 11^th main, 15^th Cross, Poorna Prajna Layout, Vaddarapalya Village, Bangnalore-560061.

¶10

Smt. Dhanalakshmi R W/o D Purushothama Aged about 39 years, No.362, 11^th Main, 15^th Cross, Poorna Prajna Layout, Vaddarapalaya Village, Bangalore-560061. ...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : Divya Purandar Defendants : Exparte

¶13

2 749/2023

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

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. 70,46,629.51/(Rupees Seventy Lakh Forty Six Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Nine and Paise Fifty One Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶16

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants availed the Term Loan under Union Home Scheme credit facility of Rs. 66,00,000/- from the applicant bank.

¶17

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with Demand Promissory Note, Housing loan agreement, Memorandum of deposit of Title deeds, equitable mortgage .

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Despite, taking out summons the defendants failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 04.10.2024.

¶21

3 749/2023

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶25

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

¶26

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶27

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶28

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 facility as stated in the OA, creation of Mortgage as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts.

¶29

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.

¶30

4 749/2023

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility 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).

¶34

In the result, OA.No.749/2023, stands allowed,

¶35

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 70,46,629.51/- (Rupees Seventy Lakh Forty Six Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Nine and Paise Fifty One 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.

¶36

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.

¶37

5 749/2023

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶42

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

¶43

of this final order.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

Rules, 1993.

¶47

[Dictated to the Stenographer (DV), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 20^th Day of August, 2026].

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(T. RAJESH)

¶50

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶51

ANNEXURES

¶52

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶53

AW-1: Hareram Singh, Manager of the applicant Bank

¶54

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶55

Annexure	Date	List of Documents
A1	--	Original Loan Application
A2	22.11.2014	Original sanction Communication
A3	25.11.2014	Original Demand Promissory Note
A4	25.11.2014	Original Letter of Continuity

¶56

6 749/2023

¶57

A5	25.11.2014	Original Housing Loan agreement
A6	25.11.2014	Original Interest agreement
A7	25.11.2014	Original Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds
A7 (a)	19.08.2013	Original Sale Deed registered as Document No. 2963/2013-14
A8	25.11.2014	Original affidavit affirming equitable mortgage
A9	25.11.2014	Original Mortgage declaration Affidavit duly notarized
A10	17.02.2017	Original Demand Promissory
A11	17.02.2017	Original Letter of Confirmation
A12	17.02.2017	Original MCLR interest agreement
--	30.07.2019	Original Debit Balance Confirmation executed by defendant No.1
A13	30.07.2019	Original Debit Balance Confirmation executed by defendant No.2
A14	02.03.2021	Original Debit Balance Confirmation
A15	25.07.2019	Office Copy of the Legal Notice
A16	09.04.2021	Office Copy of the demand notice
A17	--	Certified true extract of the said statement of accounts bearing no. 546206650000120

¶58

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

¶59

-Nil -

¶60

-Nil –

¶61

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶62

7 749/2023

Union Bank of India v. Purushothama

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Purushothama

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

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank versus Sri.Heeru Somalu Lamani

Canara Bank versus Sri.Vijayakumar

Canara Bank versus Sri.Veerendra. D.M

Ms Anjani Kumar Srivastava and Others versus Mansarovar Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Mr Amit Kumar Nag and Anr. versus Axis Bank Limited

Sri Tuhin Kumar Das and Another versus Bank of India