CANARA BANK vs M/S. KEERTHI HANDLOOMS, on 5 October 2019

✓

**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT

BENGALURU**

Dated this the 5^th day of October 2019

**:Present:

Shri K Ravindran Nair

Hon'ble Presiding Officer

In-charge-DRT-II**

**TA.No.2044/2017

(IN OA.249/2016-DRT-I)**

**BETWEEN**

**M/s. CANARA BANK,**

B.H. Road, Arasikere Branch,

Hassan Taluk and District – 573 118.

**Represented by its Sr. Manager-**

**Mr. Manjunath.**

..... **APPLICANT**

**AND:**

**1) M/s. KEERTHI HANDLOOMS,**

Represented by its Proprietor-

**Mr. Himmant Singh,**

S/o. Chunnilalrevji,

Bhooplam Complex,

B.H. Road, Arasikere – 573 103.

**2) Mr. BHAVANI SHANKAR,**

S/o. Chunnilalrevji,

M/s. Kesarariyanath Wholesale

Cloth Depot, B.H. Road,

Arasikere – 573 103.

..... **DEFENDANTS**

**Counsels on record/appeared for:**

Applicant : J.S. Advocates.

D1 & D2 : *Ex parte.*

2TA.No.2044/2017

IN OA.249/2016-DRT-I**FINAL ORDER**

The present Application dated 13.11.2015 came to be registered on the basis of jurisdictional transfer and renumbered as TA.No.2044/2017 under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.24,59,034.80 (Rupees twenty-four lakh, fifty-nine thousand, thirty-four and Paise eighty only) from the Defendants together with interest and cost.

2. The case of the applicant bank is that Defendants had approached the applicant bank for financial assistance for the purpose of their business of Wholesale clothing and in order to expand their income. The applicant bank considered their requests and sanctioned of Rs.1,00,000/-, enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- and further enhanced to Rs.4,00,000/- and further enhanced to Rs.7,00,000/-, vide Sanction Letters dated 20.02.1998, 23.03.2001, 21.12.2001 and 28.09.2004 respectively. The Defendants have executed requisite necessary documents in favour of the applicant bank for the above said loans. The defendants have agreed to repay the said loan as per 3TA.No.2044/2017

the terms and conditions of the applicant bank. After availing the loans, the defendants failed to regularize the loans account and also failed to pay the installments and did not come forward to repay the balance outstanding. The defendants did not come forward to clear the dues in response to Legal Notice dated 04.10.2010 and 26.09.2015. Hence, the present TA is filed. The applicant bank has produced the documents in favour of its case viz., Overdraft facility Forms, Cash Credit Agreement and Pronotes, Guarantee Letters, Guarantee Agreement, Letter of Revival, and Certified Accounts Extract.

3. Further the Defendants agreed to repay the above loans with variable rate of interest, as applicable from time to time as per the directions of the Head Office/Central Office of the Applicant Bank and penal interest in case of default and to keep the account regular by paying installments as and when due to the satisfaction of the Applicant Bank, as detailed in the TA by the Applicant Bank.

4. The Defendants after utilizing the entire loan proceeds for the above said purpose have failed to make the repayments of 4TA.No.2044/2017

the loan dues as agreed and they have not serviced the as per the terms and conditions agreed by Defendants. The Defendants have become chronic defaulters in the loan account and not taken any steps to clear the dues and hence the recovery process is initiated against the defendants to recover the dues.

5. In the light of these factors, it is contended by the Applicant Bank that, Defendants are liable to pay a total sum of Rs.24,59,034.80 (Rupees twenty-four lakh, fifty-nine housand, thirty-four and Paise eighty only).

6. After transfer of the TA, summons were sent to the Defendants 1 & 2 through RPAD returned with postal Shara "Left". Thereafter, summons published against the defendants No.1 and 2 through paper publication in two daily newspapers. Even then, when defendants were called out, they remained absent and hence, placed *ex-parte*.

7. To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, its Senior Manager - Mr. Ganesh. M S/o. Mr. Muniyappa has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and same was considered as evidence of AW-1 and marked at Ex. A-1 and list of documents came to be marked 5TA.No.2044/2017

as Ex.A-2 and 28 documents came to be marked as Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-30.

1. 8. No evidence on behalf of the Defendants.

2. 9. Arguments of Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/ applicant bank heard and perused the records of the case.

3. 10. Following points arise for my consideration:

1. 1) Whether Plaintiff/applicant bank proves its case as contended in the plaint/application?

2. 2) What order?

4. 11. For the following reasons, I answer the above referred points in the following manner:

**REASONS**

1. 12. Mr. Ganesh. M S/o. Mr. Muniyappa - Senior Manager of the applicant bank came to be examined as AW-1. His affidavit by way of evidence reiterates the facts pleaded in the plaint and his affidavit is also corroborated by the above referred Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-30, which clearly establish the case of the applicant bank to allow the present TA. Added to this, in spite of paper publications, the Defendants have remained absent, hence, it is 6TA.No.2044/2017

to be construed that they have admitted the entire case pleaded by the applicant bank as sought in the present TA.

13. Therefore, for these reasons, present TA is to be allowed with costs as sought by the applicant bank.