Allowed

Canara Bank v. Kunti Hanumanthu

DRT25 Nov 2025OA/1097/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this section 19 Recovery of Debts Tribunal application, the bank seeking a recovery certificate for an agricultural loan default where defendants appeared ex parte. The Tribunal allowed the application with a reduced interest rate of 6% p.a. and directed issuance of the Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.38,73,690/- with 6% p.a. simple interest per section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act.

Canara Bank versus Kunti Hanumanthu — Insurance | 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 Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.1097/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Raichur Main Branch, Opp. Vishal Mart, Chandramoulishwar Circle, Raichur – 584101, Raichur District, Rep. by its Chief Manager and PA Holder, Sri. B. Suresh Kumar … APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. Kunti Hanumanthu Aged about 67 years, S/o. Sanna Hanumanthu

¶9

Smt. Jamulamma Aged about 63 years W/o. Kunti Hanumanthu

¶10

Both residing at: Atkur Village, Raichur Taluk, Raichur District – 584102

¶11

...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Sri. H.S. Rukkoji Rao Defendants : Exparte

¶14

:FINAL ORDER:

¶15

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed

¶16

OA. No.1097/2022

¶17

¶18

under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.38,73,690/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakh Seventy Three Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed the KCC loan of Rs.1,00,000/- for paddy crop cultivation and Farm Development loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for purchasing PVC pipes and Pump-set.

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facilities, the defendants executed necessary loan documents. Apart from the creation of security interest by way of mortgage over the Schedule properties.

¶21

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, 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 account as NPA.

¶22

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate

¶23

OA. No.1097/2022

¶24

¶25

for the amount due in the account.

¶26

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 09.11.2023.

¶27

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A3 to A22 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶28

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.

¶29

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶30

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶31

claim as against the defendants?

¶32

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶33

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶34

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶35

remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The

¶36

evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found

¶37

OA. No.1097/2022

¶38

¶39

admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of credit facilities

¶40

as stated in the OA, creation of security interest as claimed by the

¶41

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.

¶42

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the

¶43

issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶44

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶45

were availed for agricultural purpose and also that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00%

¶46

p.a.(simple).

¶47

In the result, OA.No.1097/2022 stands allowed,

¶48

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶49

of Rs.38,73,690/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakh Seventy Three

¶50

Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Only) with further interest of

¶51

OA. No.1097/2022

¶52

¶53

6.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from the defendants, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against defendants jointly, severally and personally and also by proceeding against the schedule properties. The schedule properties to the OA be the schedule properties to the Recovery Certificate.

¶54

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶55

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.

¶56

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

¶57

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶58

v) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of

¶59

with this Final Order.

¶60

OA. No.1097/2022

¶61

¶62

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶63

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

¶64

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶65

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 25^th Day of November 2025].

¶66

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶67

ANNEXURES

¶68

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶69

AW-1: Mr. Sagarappa, Senior Manager of the applicant bank.

¶70

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶71

Annexure	Particulars	Date
A3	KCCS loan application submitted by the defendants to the applicant bank	11.09.2003
A4	Agreement and Deed of Hypothecation for Kisan Credit Card executed by the defendants in favour of the applicant bank	11.09.2003
A5	Simple mortgage deed executed by the defendants in favour of the applicant bank	16.08.2003
A6 to A11	Six letters of Revival executed by the defendants in favour of applicant bank in respect of KCCS loan	01.09.2006 01.06.2009, 28.11.2011 20.11.2014 24.07.2017 28.02.2020
A12	Loan application submitted by the defendants	11.09.2003

¶72

OA. No.1097/2022

¶73

A13	Memorandum of agreement agricultural loans executed by defendants in favour of the applic bank	for the ant	11.09.2003
A14	Particulars Vehicles/Machinery/Equipment’s hypothecated executed by defendants in favour of the applic bank	of the ant	12.09.2003
A15	Simple mortgage deed executed the defendants in favour of applicant bank	by the	16.08.2003
A16 to A20	Five letters of Revival executed by defendants in favour of the applic bank in respect of Farm Developm loan	the ant ent	01.09.2006 28.11.2011 04.11.2014 02.02.2017 04.05.2019
A21 & A22	Certified account extracts of defendant No.1 maintained applicant bank in respect of accounts	the by 2	-

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Kunti Hanumanthu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Kunti Hanumanthu

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