Bangalore District Court
Canara Bank vs M/S Merroit Traders on 14 January, 2026
Com.OS.No.1218/2025
KABC170027892025
IN THE COURT OF LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-86) (Commercial Court)
THIS THE 14th DAY OF JANUARY 2026
PRESENT:
SRI.ARJUN. S. MALLUR. B.A.L.LL.B.,
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.OS.No.1218/2025
BETWEEN:
Canara Bank(Erstwhile Syndicate Bank),
Having Its Head Office At No.112, J C Road,
Bengaluru-560 002. And Having Branch Office At
Rajajinagar IIIrd Block, No.628, 629, 3rd Block,
Rajajinagar Beangaluru-560 010.
Represented By Its Chief Manager,
Jasmine Ashok Badani
Aged About 37 Years.
[email protected]
: PLAINTIFF
(Represented by Smt. Sowbhagya V., Advocate)
AND
M/S Merroit Traders
Prop, Bheema Reddy, No.786/35,
1
Com.OS.No.1218/2025
42nd Cross, 3rd Block, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru-560 010.
Also At:
Sri. Bheema Reddy, S/o Tammareddy,
Aged About 45 Years, No.650,
2nd Floor, Out House, 3rd Main Road,
10th AWOC Road, Mahalaxmipuram,
Bengaluru-560 086.
: DEFENDANT
(Represented By Sri. Harish B. S. Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit 03.09.2025
Nature of the suit (suit on
pronote, suit for declaration & Suit for Recovery of Money.
Possession, Suit for injunction
etc.)
Date of commencement of 13.01.2026
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was 14.01.2026
pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
00 04 11
(ARJUN. S. MALLUR)
LXXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.17,93,353.54/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Ninety Three Thousand Three 2 Com.OS.No.1218/2025 Hundred Fifty Three and Fifty Four Paise Only) with interest at 10.65% p.a from the date of suit till realization.
2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as under:-
The defendant had availed overdraft loan for business purposes from the plaintiff bank which was sanctioned on 19.08.2010 for a sum of Rs.2,15,000/- which came to be lastly renewed on 18.05.2023 to Rs.15,00,000/- as per the sanction letter dated 18.05.2023. Towards the said loan the defendant executed composite hypothecation agreement dated 27.11.2014 and 16.03.2018, cash credit agreement dated 19.12.2020, pronote dated 28.05.2023, letters of revival dated 13.03.2017, 21.04.2022 and 18.05.2023 and renewal letters dated 13.03.2017, 21.04.2022 and 18.05.2023 and also executed the letter of proprietorship and further executed letters of revival dated 1308.2013, 01.07.2016, 28.06.2019, 21.04.2022 and 18.05.2023. The defendant as agreed failed to repay the loan as per the schedule resulting in the loan becoming an NPA. The plaintiff issued a demand notice dated 25.09.2024 to which defendant issued a reply dated 16.10.2024 admitting the loan availed by him falsely contending that sufficient opportunity is not provided for repayment of the loan. It s 3 Com.OS.No.1218/2025 submitted that as per the books of accounts maintained with the bank as on the date of suit defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.17,93,353.54ps. The plaintiff bank instituted PIM proceedings in PIM No.2288/2024 in which the defendant did not participate and the same was closed as a non-starter Hence the suit.
3. On service of summons the defendant appeared and filed written statement making a para wise denial of all the plaint averments. The defendant in the written statement has contended that inspite of payment of regular interest the bank has not provided sufficient time for repayment and has pressurized the defendant by issuing the demand notice and sought for dismissing the suit with costs.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is liable to pay the suit claim of Rs.17,93,353.54 paise with future interest at 10.65% per annum compounded monthly rests from date of suit till realization?
2) What order or decree?4
Com.OS.No.1218/2025
5. The Manger of the plaintiff bank has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.20. The defendant has not cross examined the plaintiff witness. As no specific defence has been put forth by the defendant apart from making a general denial the defendant evidence was taken as nil.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. Perused the entire material on record.
7. My answer to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : As per final order for the following.
REASONS
8. ISSUE No.:- The Manager of the plaintiff bank has examined himself as P.W.1 reiterating the averments made in the plaint and has got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.20. Ex.P.1 is the Loan application dated 20.03.2023. Ex.P.2 is the Sanction letter dated 18.05.2023. Ex.P.3 is the Composite hypothecation agreement dated 27.11.2014. Ex.P.4 is the Composite hypothecation agreement dated 16.03.2018. Ex.P.5 is the Cash credit agreement dated 19.12.2020. Ex.P.6 to P.8 are 5 Com.OS.No.1218/2025 the Renewal letters dated 13.03.2017, 21.04.2022, 18.05.2023. Ex.P.9 is the Request for renewal dated 13.03.2017. Ex.P.10 is the Pronote dated 18.05.2023. Ex.P.11 is the Letter of Proprietorship dated 18.05.2023. Ex.P.12 to P.14 are the AOD dated 13.08.2013, 01.07.2016, 28.06.2019. Ex.P.15 & P.16 are the Letters of revival dated 21.04.2022 and 18.05.2023. Ex.P.17 is the Demand notice dated 25.09.2024. Ex.P.18 is the Reply dated 16.10.2024. Ex.P.19 is the Certified extract of bank statement with Banker Book Evidence Act certificate. Ex.P.20 is the Non starter report in PIM 2288/2024.
9. As seen from the above the defendant except making a general denial of the plaint averments has not raised any specific defence. It is the only contention of the defendant that though he was regular in payment of interest the plaintiff bank has failed to extend sufficient time for repayment and had pressurized the defendant by issuing a demand notice. Same is also the contents of the reply which is marked at Ex.P.18. Whatever the amounts that has been paid by the defendant towards the interest has been duly credited which is evident for the entries found in the certified account extract produced and marked as Ex.P.19. Merely because the defendant keeps 6 Com.OS.No.1218/2025 paying the interest it does not require that there must be an extension of time to make repayment of the loan. Apart paying the interest the borrower is also obligated to repay the principal amount also. There has been repeated request by the bank calling upon the defendant to repay the principal along with interest to which admittedly the defendant has not adhered to. The loan documents that are executed at Ex.P.2 to P.16 clearly substantiates that the defendant from time to time kept reviving his loan facility and renewing the same and ultimately has failed to clear the outstanding liability inspite of demands raised by the plaintiff bank. Thus there being no evidence by the defendant it can be safely inferred that the defendant has utterly failed to clear the outstanding liability and is liable to pay to the plaintiff bank the outstanding amount as claimed in the suit. Accordingly I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
10. ISSUE No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons I pass the following.
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs.
7Com.OS.No.1218/2025 The defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff bank a sum of Rs.17,93,353.54/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Ninety Three Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Three and Fifty Four Paise Only) with interest at 10.65% p.a compounded at monthly rests from the date of suit till realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
Office to send soft copy of the judgment to respective parties on their email if furnished.
[Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me then pronounced in the Open Court, dated this the 14th day of January 2026] Digitally signed by ARJUN ARJUN SRINATH SRINATH MALLUR Date: 2026.01.14 MALLUR 17:30:44 +0530 (ARJUN. S. MALLUR) LXXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
PW-1 Mr. Jasmine Ashok Badani 8 Com.OS.No.1218/2025 LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF Ex.P.1 Loan application dated 20.03.2023 Ex.P.2 Sanction letter dated 18.05.2023 Ex.P.3 Composite hypothecation agreement dated 27.11.2014 Ex.P.4 Composite hypothecation agreement dated 16.03.2018 Ex.P.5 Cash credit agreement dated 19.12.2020 Ex.P.6 to Renewal letters dated 13.03.2017, 21.04.2022, P.8 18.05.2023 Ex.P.9 Request for renewal dated 13.03.2017 Ex.P.10 Pronote dated 18.05.2023 Ex.P.11 Letter of Proprietorship dated 18.05.2023 Ex.P.12 AOD dated 13.08.2013, 01.07.2016, to P.14 28.06.2019 Ex.P.15 Letters of revival dated 21.04.2022 and & P.16 18.05.2023 Ex.P.17 Demand notice dated 25.09.2024 Ex.P.18 Reply dated 16.10.2024 Ex.P.19 Certified extract of bank statement with Banker Book Evidence Act certificate Ex.P.20 Non starter report in PIM 2288/2024 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT DW-1 Nil 9 Com.OS.No.1218/2025 LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Nil (ARJUN. S. MALLUR) LXXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
10