CORPORATION BANK vs N.D SANTHOSH on 27 August 2026

FINAL ORDER

1. The present Transfer Application in short (TA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 12,36,615/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Thirty-Six Thousand Six Hundred and Fifteen Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

2. It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant no. 2(a &b) are the legal heirs of the deceased guarantor Sri. L Siddaiah, who expired during the pendency of TA have availed a Cash Credit loan of Rs. 9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) for working capital.

3. It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facility, the defendant no.1 executed necessary loan document. Apart from the creation of security interest by way of Simple mortgage deed over the schedule property.

4. It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, borrower failed in complying the same, resulting in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as 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. After filling of the TA, summons sent to defendants by registered post. The summons to defendant no.2 returned unserved with an endorsement “dead” and the applicant bank has filed an IA no. 2466/2019 to bring the LR of deceased defendant no.2. When the case came up for hearing on 04.03.2021, in spite of granting sufficient time for applicant to take steps on the LR of defendant no.2. Hence, proceeding against the LR of defendant no.2 closed on 18.01.2021. Despite, services completed, the defendants no 1, 2(a) & (b) placed ex parte on 12.05.2026.

7. The applicant let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the TA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A11 and got the same marked in evidence.

8. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the TA in the light of documentary evidence and the proof affidavit.

9. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants? ii) What orders are to be passed?

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

10. The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained ex parte. 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 TA, creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. 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.

11. Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that TA is liable to be allowed.

12. Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility is availed for Agricultural purpose also that the TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal of the view that TA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00%(simple).

13. In the result, TA.No.83/2017 stands allowed,

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 12,36,615/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Thirty-Six Thousand Six Hundred and Fifteen Only) with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing TA till the realization, from the defendant nos. 1 & 2(a & b), to the extent of their inheritance of any estate form the deceased guarantor, Sri. L Siddaiah, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the TA allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule property. The schedule property to the TA be the schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient to clean the liability defendant no.1 are liable to the extent of estate, they inherited from deceased Sri. L Siddaiah for the balance amount.

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order. iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

v) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of with this Final 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 the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27th Day of August, 2026].

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

ANNEXURES WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK: AW-1 Mahesh C, Senior Manager, of the applicant bank.

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant: Annexure Particulars A1 Application Dated 05.11.2013 A2 Credit sanction intimation A3 On Demand Promissory Note Dated 07.11.2013 A4 Take delivery letter to DPN dated 07.11.2013 A5 Agreement for term loans dated 07.11.2013 A6 Letter of undertakings dated 07.11.2013 A7 Guarantee agreement dated 07.11.2013 A8 Simple mortgage deed dated 31.10.2013 A9 Common deed of hypothecation of movables/assets/debts dated 07.11.2013 A10 Legal notice dated 22.08.2016 A11 Accounts extract Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil - List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil -

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICE