Allowed

Canara Bank v. Kuchele Gowda

DRT25 Nov 2025OA/1092/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Canara Bank for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against two defendants defaulting on an agricultural loan. The court found evidence uncontroverted and allowed the claim with reduced interest at 6% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 35,69,731 with 6% p.a. simple interest recoverable from schedule properties and personal assets.

Canara Bank versus Kuchele Gowda — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 25^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer OA.No.1092/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Nanjanguda Branch, Priya Complex, MG Road, Nanjanguda, Mysore District – 571 301

¶7

Represented by Senior Manager & PA holder

¶8

Smt. Saritha K S …APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Sri. Kuchele Gowda S/o. late Side Gowda Aged about 73 years

¶11

Sri. Made Gowda S/o. late Side Gowda Aged about 71 years

¶12

Both are residing at: Katwadipura Village, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysore District – 571 301 ...DEFENDANTS

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : HSR & Associates Defendants : Ex parte

OA-1092/2022

FINAL ORDER

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking for issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 35,69,731/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty One Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed a Farm machinery loan of Rs. 5,80,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs eighty thousand Only) for purchase of tractor & trailer.

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loan, the defendants executed the necessary loan document along with simple mortgage deed.

¶21

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan amount promptly and regularly, the defendants failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶22

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

¶23

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 13.11.2024.

¶24

OA-1092/2022

¶25

¶26

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-14 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

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

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶30

claim as against the defendants?

¶31

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶32

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶33

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 OA, creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount

¶34

due are also proved by the above document. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶35

OA-1092/2022

¶36

¶37

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal

¶38

find both these issues are in favour of applicant and hence, this

¶39

Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶40

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility are

¶41

availed for Agricultural purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal is the view that the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

¶42

In the result, OA.No.1092/2022 stands allowed,

¶43

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 35,69,731/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty One Only) with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally and personally, after giving credit to all

¶44

the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule properties. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶45

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the

¶46

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶47

OA-1092/2022

¶48

¶49

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶50

which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of

¶51

receipt of the order.

¶52

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order

¶53

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶54

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in

¶55

terms of this final order.

¶56

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶57

terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT

¶58

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶59

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in

¶60

the Open Court, this the 25^th Day of November, 2025].

¶61

(T. RAJESH)

¶62

PRESIDING OFFICER

OA-1092/2022

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶67

AW-1: Sri. Ashish Shukla, S/o. Awadhesh Shukla, Manager & PA holder, of Applicant Bank.

¶68

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶69

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	-----	Affidavit evidence
A2	-----	List of documents
A3	10.09.2005	Loan application submitted by the defendants with the applicant bank
A4	20.09.2005	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans executed by the defendants in favor of applicant bank
A5	13.09.2005	Simple mortgage deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of the applicant bank
A6	13.09.2005	Simple mortgage deed executed by defendant no.2 in favour of the applicant bank
A7	07.02.2006	Registration certificates of the tractor & trailer issued by the RTO
A8	06.10.2005	Particulars of vehicles/machinery hypothecation executed by the defendants in favour of the applicant bank
A9	14.05.2008 02.05.2011 13.07.2013 10.07.2016	4 nos. of letter of revival executed by the defendant nos.1 & 2 in favour of applicant bank
A10	------	Certified account extract of the defendant no.1 maintained by the applicant bank

¶70

Witness Examined for the Defendants: List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶71

-Nil -

¶72

-Nil -

¶73

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Kuchele Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Kuchele Gowda

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

Basil Co. versus Kerala Gramin Bank

Uco Bank versus Sh. Bachchan Kumar Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Bhagwant Singh

Indu Kumari Pandey versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S K. K. Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Mr. Praveen