Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Ms Shri Hari Industries

DRT2 Feb 2026OA/882/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Original Application for issuance of Recovery Certificate under RDB Act allowed on ex-parte basis. Recovery of principal amount and reduced interest (10% simple) personally from partners and against assets granted due to uncontradicted evidence.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 22,94,683/- plus 10% simple interest from filing date till realization from the defendant personally and against its assets.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ms Shri Hari Industries — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 02^nd Day of February, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.882/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Bank of Maharashtra, One of its Branch at Basavanagudi, Bangalore, represented by Sri. Nishit Chandra, Chief Manager, Asset Recovery Branch, Basavanagudi, Bangalore- 560004.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

M/s. Shri Hari Industirs. A Partnership Firm, Represented by its Partners.

¶10

Sri. Rajeev Jagirdar, Aged about 56 years.

¶11

Smt. Padmaja Jagirdar, Aged about 49 years.

¶12

Both are residents of No. 102, Krishna Apartments, Near Arehalli Arch, Uttarahalli, Bangalore.

¶13

...DEFENDANT

¶14

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶15

Applicant : G.K. Suresh Associates Defendants : Exparte

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

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 defendant for Rs. 22,94,683/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakh Ninety Four Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Three Only)

¶18

OA 882/2023

¶19

¶20

with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶21

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant availed term loan of Rs. 33,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh Only) and working capital loan of Rs. 11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven lakh Only).

¶22

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with on demand promissory note, deed of hypothecation and guarantee for all facilities.

¶23

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan account 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 balance amount due in the account.

¶25

Despite, summons on the defendant, they failed to appear resulting the defendant being set exparte on 13.11.2024.

¶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-13 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the

¶28

OA 882/2023

¶29

¶30

contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶31

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶32

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

¶33

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant 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 Hypothecation and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶39

availed for Business purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by

¶40

OA 882/2023

¶41

¶42

calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view of the OA can

¶43

be allowed with a reduced interest of 10.00% (simple).

¶44

In the result, OA.No.882/2023, stands allowed,

¶45

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 22,94,683/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakh Ninety Four Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Three Only) with further interest @10.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendant (represented by its partners) 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 the defendant (represented by its partners) personally and also proceeding against its assets including the schedule assets. Schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶46

ii) 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 order.

¶48

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

¶49

iv) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

¶50

OA 882/2023

¶51

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

Rules, 1993.

¶55

[Dictated to the Stenographer (AJ), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 02^nd Day of February, 2026].

¶56

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶57

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶58

ANNEXURES

¶59

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶60

AW-1: V. Shakthivel, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶61

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶62

Exhibit Nos.	List of documents
	First Loan (Term loan)
A1	Sanction letter dt. 06.03.2015
A2	Intimation to the sanction letter dated: 09.03.2015
A3	On demand promissory note executed by the partners of defendant, dated 13.03.2015
A4	Deed of hypothecation for all facilities executed by the partners of defendant dated 13.03.2015
A5	Guarantee for all facilities except agricultural facilities executed by the partners of defendant dated: 13.03.2015
A6	Deed of declaration/ undertakings executed by the partners of defendant dated 13.03.2015
A7	Statement of account
	Second loan (Cash Credit)
A8	Sanction letter dated 24.08.2015
A9	On demand promissory note executed by the partners of defendant dated 24.08.2015
A10	Deed of hypothecation for all facilities executed by the partners of defendant, dated 24.08.2015

¶63

OA 882/2023

¶64

¶65

A11 Guarantee for all facilities except agricultural facilities executed by the partners of defendant, dated 4.08.2015 A12 Statement of accounts A13 Certificate

¶66

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

¶67

-Nil -

¶68

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶69

PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Maharashtra v. Ms Shri Hari Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Ms Shri Hari Industries

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 Braj Mohan Sharma

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Bhole Crain Services, through Its, Proprietor- Shri Parash Ram Sharma

Punjab National Bank versus Manish Kumar Pandey

Rafiqul Alam And Anr. versus Canara Bank

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Thimmanna and Another

State Bank of India versus Sh. Nirmal Singh