Allowed

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) v. Nagaraj

DRT29 Aug 2025OA/1128/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for a recovery certificate against a borrower and guarantor who failed to repay agricultural loans. The defendants appeared ex parte. The Tribunal found the loan availed, defaults proven, and evidence sufficient.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs.23,28,500 with 6% p.a. interest from filing date, recoverable from defendants personally and via schedule property.

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus Nagaraj — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 29^th Day of August, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1128/2023

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank (erstwhile Syndicate Bank) Hoskote Branch, Ward No.6, Kavery Complex, M.V. Extension, College Road, Hoskote Town, Bangalore Rural-562114

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. K.T. Nagaraj S/o Sri. Thammegowda R/at No.81, Kolathur, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural- 562114

¶9

Sri. Narayana Swamy S/o. Sri. Sriramaiah Reddy, R/at Hanumantharayanahalli, Hamumagiripalli, Chinthamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District-563128 ...DEFENDANTS

¶10

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶11

Applicant : Ramanand Achar Defendants : Exparte

OA 1128/2023

FINAL ORDER

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.23,28,500/- (Rupees twenty three lakh twenty eight thousand five hundred only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶16

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant No.1 as borrower and defendant No.2 as the guarantor had availed the following credit facilities from the erstwhile Syndicate Bank which later got amalgamated with Canara Bank:-

¶17

I. Crop Loan of a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Only) and

¶18

II. Farm Development loan limit of Rs.3,75,000/- (Rupees Three lakh Seventy Five Thousand Only).

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with agreement for Agricultural Advances, simple mortgage deed and deed of guarantee in favor of the applicant bank.

¶20

It is further contended that, the defendants despite

¶21

OA 1128/2023

¶22

¶23

availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, failed in complying the same, resulting in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶24

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.

¶25

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 25.10.2024.

¶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-18 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 the proof affidavit.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶30

OA 1128/2023

¶31

¶32

OA claim as against the defendant?

¶33

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. 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 facilities as stated in the OA, creation of hypothecation and mortgage as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim as the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶36

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶37

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶38

are availed by defendant No.1 for agricultural purpose and also

¶39

OA 1128/2023

¶40

¶41

that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed

¶42

rate, this Tribunal, in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest @6% p.a. (Simple).

¶43

In the result, OA.No.1128/2023 stands allowed,

¶44

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.23,28,500/- (Rupees twenty three lakh twenty eight thousand five hundred only) with further interest @6% p.a. (Simple),

¶45

from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceedings against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶46

(ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendants personally and his other assets are liable to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶47

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of

¶48

OA 1128/2023

¶49

¶50

receipt of the order.

¶51

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

¶52

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶53

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

¶54

in terms of this final order.

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶58

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by

¶59

me in the Open Court, this the 29^th day of August, 2025].

¶60

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶61

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶62

ANNEXURES

¶63

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶64

AW-1: Snehlata, Branch Manager, of the Applicant Bank.

¶65

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶66

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	--	Applicant Evidence
A2	--	List of Documents.
A3	18.02.2016	Loan Application
A4	25.02.2016	Stamped Consideration Receipt
A5	04.03.2016	Stamped Consideration Receipt
A6	09.03.2016	Stamped Consideration Receipt
A7	18.02.2016	Agreement for Agricultural Advances

¶67

OA 1128/2023

¶68

¶69

A8	18.02.2016	Deed of Guarantee
A9	18.02.2016	Regd. Simple Mortgage deed
A10	03.11.2016	Loan Application
A11	04.11.2016	Agreement for Agricultural Advances
A12	04.11.2016	Deed of Guarantee
A13	03.11.2016	Confirmation of Creation of Second Equitable Mortgage
A14	04.02.2019	Acknowledgement of Debt
A15	04.02.2019	Letter of Revival
A16	12.04.2023	Legal Notice
A17		Account Extract (Crop)
A18		Account Extract (Farm development loan)

¶70

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

-Nil -

-Nil -

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) v. Nagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) v. Nagaraj

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

Punjab National Bank versus Kavita

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Amit Kumar

Central Bank of India versus M/S Fortress Packaging Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Lanvin Exports versus Canara Bank

Mrs Gayathri S and Another versus Tumkur Grain Merchants Cooperative Bank Limited

K R Nagesh versus Katta Radhakrishnaiah Nagesh