Allowed

The Karnataka Bank Limited v. Nector

DRT30 Jul 2026TA/812/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Karnataka Bank for recovery of a sanctioned loan amount of approximately 1.97 crore Rupees, along with costs and interest. The court proceeded administratively ex parte due to the absence of defendants, noting that the bank had established its case through unchallenged documentary evidence. A recovery certificate was directed to be issued

What did the court decide?

Direct payment of Rs. 1,97,42,933.64 plus interest and cost within 30 days; recovery from sale of hypothecated/mortgaged assets; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

The Karnataka Bank Limited versus Nector — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

Before SUSHIL^{KUMARRASTOGI, Presiding Officer} Debts Recovela Tribunal-Il,^Delhi

¶2

TA No.812 OF 2024

¶3

KARNATAKA^{BANKVS NECTOR& ORS}

¶4

Reserued on : 18.O6.2O26

¶5

Pronounced on^{: 3O.O7.2O26}

Karnataka^Bank

-Applicant bank

Vs.

Nector

¶10

Sh. Chetan^Kumar

¶11

Smt.^{Sudesh Kumari}

¶12

Defendants

¶13

Present: Shri.^{Rishabh Jain, proxyCounsel for Shri} iumeet^{Batra, Counselappears for applicant} bank.

¶14

Defendants^{are exparte, since, 29'10'2025.}

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original^{application has been filed by the} applicant^{bank, on 28.08'2018through Sh' Krishna} Thakur,AuthorizedOfficeroftheapplicantbank'under Section^{19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants} for recovery^{of a sum of Rs'!,97,42,933'64 together with} cost, charges^{and pendentellite and future interest} @16.250lo^{p.a' from date of filing of this O'A' till the} realizationⁱⁿ full.

TANO. Sl2of 2024

The brief facts of the case^are that^{at the request} of defendants, the applicant bank^{sanctioneda Credit} Facility under KBL Vyaapar Mitra with^{existing Over Draft} Limit of Rs.1,00,00,000/-, vide sanction^{letter dated} 09.07.2013. The defendants secure the^{aforesaid credit} facility by created the securities^{i.e., (a). Hypothecation} the stock in trade i.e. all items stored,^{stacked, installed,} parked in the House No.182, school wali^{gali, near} community centre, MCD Banquet^{Hall, Azadpur,New} Delhi-l10033. (b). Book debts through^{General Powerof} Attorney dated 16.07.2013.^{(c). ResidentialProperty with} built up area of 73 sq.^{yds., situatedin the House No'182,} School wali^gali, Azadpur,^{New Delhi-110033in the name} of defendant no.2. The defendants^{executed all} necessry loaning documents on t6.07.20t3.^The defendant nos.2 & 3 stood as^guarantors.

¶21

It is further submitted that^{the defendants enjoyed} and utilized the Loan^{facilities, but failed to maintain the} financial discipline and^{failed to repay the due amounts.} The applicant bank requested^{the defendants to} regularize the loan account by^{visits and letters, but there} was no response from the defendants.^{Hence, the} account was classifled as^{NPA dated 29.10.2014.The} applicant bank serued^{a demand notice dated 02.01.2015} to the defendants but failed to^{recoverthe same Thus,} the^present O.A.ff.A.^{is preferred by the applicant bank} to recover its dues.

¶22

On notice by this^{Tribunal, defendantsfailed to put} appearance at all, despite^{publication. Accordingly, the} defendants were^{proceededagainst exparteon} 29.t0.2025. s^'.

¶23

TANO.8l2of2024

¶24

¶25

The applicant bank has filed documents^{along with} O.A. as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-10, which^{have gone} unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant stands fully established against the^defendants with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

¶26

After^perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has^proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The documents filed by the applicant bank not rebutted by the defendants by not^placing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the documents filed by the applicant bank based upon the written/printed documents.

¶27

In the light of the above discussions, the^present T.A. deserues to be allowed.

¶28

ORDER

¶29

I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the defendant nos.1 to 3 to^{pay jointly} and^severally to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a^sum of Rs.1,97,42,933.64 along with cost, expenses^and interest @13.25olo from the date of filing of^{this O.A.} which has become T.A till the date of^realization.

¶30

In case of failure to deposit the above^amount within the stipulated^period, the same^{shall be recovered} from the sale of hypothecated assets and the sale of mortgaged^property i.e., Residential Propefi^havingbuilt

TANO.8l2of2024

up area of 73 sq.^{yds., situated inthe House} No.182, Schoolwaligali,^{Azadpur, New Delhi-110033.In} case of shoft fall, the^{same shall be recoveredfrom the} sale of^{personal movable and immovable assets of the} defendant nos.l to^3.

¶35

Recovery^{Certificatebe issuedforthwith and be sent} to Recovery Officer,^{Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi'}

¶36

The registry of^{this Tribunal is hereby directedto} issue free copy of the^{order and send the same to both} the^parties.

¶37

Pafties are directed^{to appear before the Ld'} Recovery Officer,^{DRT-II, Delhi on 30.09.2026' Pending} IAs, if any, stand^{disPosed of.}

¶38

File be consigned^{to records.}

¶39

,SA

¶40

(SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶41

Date : 30.07.2026

¶42

This^judgement has^{been signed, dated and}

¶43

pronounced in oPen coutt.

¶44

.sAi

¶45

Date : 30.07.2026

¶46

(SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

The Karnataka Bank Limited v. Nector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Bank Limited v. Nector

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