BANK OF MAHARASHTRA vs PRAKASH GOWDA KALLVER & ANR (BLR) on 27 April 2026

FINAL ORDER

1. The Application was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Bengaluru on 03.12.2015 Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debt

And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and numbered as OA No. 2233/2015, seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 53,81,008/- (Rupees fifty- three lakh eighty-one thousand and eight only). Subsequently, owing to bifurcation of jurisdiction vide Government of India Gazette Notification dated 30.01.2017, the Application (OA No. 2233/2015) was transferred from Debts Recovery Tribunal -I, Bangalore to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No. 46/2017.

2. It is the case of the Applicant that Defendant No. 1 had availed a term loan (housing loan) of Rs. 19,50,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) against the mortgage of immovable property, for which Defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor. Further, Defendant No. 1 also availed a term loan (four-wheeler loan) of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh Only) for the purchase of a new four-wheeler, namely a Mercedes-Benz vehicle.

3. It is also the case of the Applicant that, in view of the above loan, the Defendants executed the necessary loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank to secure the loans and also created the requisite security interest over the scheduled properties to secure the loans.

4. It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendants, despite availing the credit facility, after agreeing with the Terms and Conditions for the loan, failed in complying with the same, resulting in defaults and consequentially turning the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

5. In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this TA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

6. Summons were duly served on the Defendants. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement but failed to adduce evidence within the stipulated time; hence, the evidence of Defendant No. 1 was closed on 10.04.2026. Defendant No. 2 failed to appear before the Tribunal despite service of summons and was accordingly set ex parte on 25.09.2023.

7. In the written statement filed by Defendant No. 1, it is contended that the Applicant has no locus standi to file the present recovery proceedings, as the same are wholly misconceived and not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is further contended that the application has been verified by one Mr. R. Subbaraju, stated to be the Manager of the Applicant, who is not a duly authorized officer of the bank competent to verify the same. The Defendant further contends that the Applicant is liable to be proceeded against for approaching this Hon’ble Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 2417 of 2014 against the Defendant, alleging that the Applicant has abused the process of law by instituting multiple proceedings on the same cause of action. The Defendant has also challenged the alleged acknowledgment of debt. It is further contended that, at the time of availing the housing loan, the Applicant had obtained the Defendant’s signatures on various blank documents without disclosing the true facts.

8. The Applicant examined AW-1, who filed his proof affidavit reiterating the averments made in the T.A. and produced documents marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-7. The Applicant further filed I.A. No. 3228/2025 seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence, which was allowed by this Tribunal, and accordingly, Exhibits A-8 to A-21 were marked as secondary evidence.

9. The Applicant’s evidence remain un-rebutted and hence proved. The contentions raised by Defendant No. 1 in the written statement are devoid of merit and liable to be rejected. The Applicant has duly established its locus standi to institute the present proceedings, being the creditor bank entitled to recover the outstanding dues from the Defendants. The plea regarding non-maintainability of the application is untenable both in law and on facts. The application has been validly verified by a competent and duly authorized officer of the Applicant bank, and no material has been placed on record by Defendant No. 1 to substantiate the allegation to the contrary. The contention alleging abuse of process of law by filing multiple proceedings on the same cause of action is also baseless, as the present application is maintainable and within the framework of law. The challenge to the acknowledgment of debt is unsupported by any cogent evidence. Further, the allegation that the Applicant obtained signatures on blank documents is a bald assertion, lacking proof, and cannot be accepted in the absence of any substantive evidence. Accordingly, the defences raised by Defendant No. 1 are rejected.

10. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence the Applicant is to be found entitled for the TA claim as the only issue as to the proof of TA claim is answered in favour of the applicant. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

11. The evidence adduced by the Applicant discloses that the Applicant had issued a notice dated 17.12.2014 and thereafter repossessed the vehicle described in Schedule ‘B’ to the TA from the Defendant. Subsequent to such repossession, the said vehicle was sold after due issuance of a sale notice. In the said sale, the Applicant realized a sum of Rs. 14,05,850/-, which amount was duly appropriated towards the outstanding dues in the Defendant’s term loan -vehicle loan account.

12. Since the TA claim has been arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, pendente lite and future interest are awarded at 8.00% per annum (simple). The prayer for interest with monthly rests and for penal interest for the future period is hereby declined.

13. In view of the above i. TA 46 OF 2017 stands allowed ii. The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 53,81,008/- (Rupees fifty-three lakh eighty-one thousand and eight only) consisting of:

a) Rs. 14,25,220/- (Rupees fourteen lakh twenty-five thousand two hundred and twenty only) from the Defendants jointly, severally and personally with pendente lite and future interest of 8.00% p.a. (simple), b) Rs. 39,55,788/- (Rupees thirty-nine lakh fifty-five thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight only) from the Defendant No.1 personally with pendente lite and future interest of 8.00% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the TA till the realization, from the respective Defendants after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA including a sum of Rs. 14,05,850/- realized from the sale of Schedule ‘B’ vehicle and appropriated towards the vehicle loan account, and permit recovery of the balance amount by proceeding against the Schedule ‘A’ properties. Schedule ‘A’ to the TA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate. iii. If the sale proceeds are not sufficient to clear the loan amount due from the Defendants; the Applicant Bank shall be at liberty to proceed against the other assets of Defendant No. 1 for recovery of the balance amount due. The other assets of Defendant No. 2 shall be liable only in respect of the term loan (housing loan).

iv. Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order. v. A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the recovery Officer to enable recovery of the as per the above terms. vi. Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. (Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2026)

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

PRESIDING OFFICER

ANNEXURES WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK: AW-1: Sri. Shakthi Velu, General Manager, of Applicant Bank. Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

Exhibit Nos. Date Particulars of Documents A1 -- Application A2 05.01.2013 Credit sanction letter A3 10.01.2013 Demand Promissory note A4 05.01.2013 Hypothecation of vehicles A5 22.08.2014 Notice A6 17.12.2014 Notice A7 -- Account extract A8 06.04.2011 Application A9 10.05.2011 Credit Sanction letter A10 27.05.2011 Request letter for making credit facility available A11 27.05.2011 Agreement for housing loan A12 27.05.2011 Demand promissory note A13 27.05.2011 Receipt for amount of loan A14 27.05.2011 Guarantee A15 10.06.2011 Mortgagors declaration for proposed equitable mortgage A16 12.06.2011 Mortgagors letter of confirmation of equitable mortgage

A17 27.05.2011 Sale Deed A18 20.05.2014 Notice A19 26.05.2014 Balance and security confirmation letter by borrower A20 12.08.2014 Notice A21 -- Account Extract

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

-Nil- List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

-Nil-

Sd/-

(T. RAJESH)

PRESIDING OFFICER