Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mahadeva Swamy K P

DRT27 Nov 2025OA/1187/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex parte application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993, the Tribunal allowed the bank's prayer for a Recovery Certificate. Despite agricultural loan purposes, the Court reduced the interest rate to 6% simple and directed recovery from the defendant's personal assets and schedule properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 62,41,164 with 6% simple interest from filing date, recoverable from defendant personally and schedule properties.

Canara Bank versus Mahadeva Swamy K P — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1187/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Chamarajnagar Branch, Chamarajanagar – 571 313

¶7

Represented by its Manager and PA Holder Sri. Himanshu Kumar …APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Mahadeva Swamy K P S/o. Sri. Puttaswamy Aged about 57 years

¶10

Residing at: Kothalavadi Village, Harave Hobli, Chamarajanagar Taluk And District – 571 123 ...DEFENDANT

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : HSR & Associates Defendant : Ex parte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

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

¶15

under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking for issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendant for

¶16

Rs. 62,41,164/- (Rupees Sixty Two Lakhs Forty One Thousand One

¶17

OA-1187/2022

¶18

¶19

Hundred and Sixty Four Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant availed the following credit facilities:

¶21

Farm Machinery loan of Rs. 5,90,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety Thousand Only) to purchase tractor and trailer for his agricultural operations.

¶22

KCCS loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) for crop cultivation.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set ex parte on 14.10.2024.

¶27

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof

¶28

Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-28 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶29

OA-1187/2022

¶30

¶31

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the

¶32

contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶33

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶34

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶35

claim as against the defendant?

¶36

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶37

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶38

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant 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 facilities as stated in the OA, creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above document. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

OA-1187/2022

¶43

¶44

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶45

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).

¶46

In the result, OA.No.1187/2022 stands allowed,

¶47

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 62,41,164/- (Rupees Sixty Two Lakhs Forty One Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Four Only)with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendant personally, 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 the schedule properties. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶48

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

¶49

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant personally and his assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶50

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

¶51

OA-1187/2022

¶52

¶53

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

¶54

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶55

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

¶56

terms of this final order.

¶57

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶58

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

¶59

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶60

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

¶61

the Open Court, this the 27^th Day of November, 2025].

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

(T. RAJESH)

¶64

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶65

ANNEXURES

¶66

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶67

AW-1: Direndra M, S/o. K Mariraj, Manager, 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	20.10.2004	Farm machinery loan application submitted by the defendant to the applicant bank

¶70

OA-1187/2022

¶71

¶72

A4	20.10.2004	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans executed by the defendant in favour of the applicant bank
A5	20.10.2004	Simple mortgage deed executed by the defendant in the favour of the applicant bank
A6 & A7	05.02.2005	Registration certificates of the tractor and trailer with the applicant banks lien
A8	21.10.2004	Particulars of the vehicles hypothecated executed by the defendant in favour of the applicant bank
A9 to A17	19.10.2006 24.07.2008 23.12.2009 21.12.2010 20.11.2013 02.06.2014 20.05.2017 30.12.2018 27.07.2021	9 nos. letters of revival executed by the defendant in favour of the applicant bank in respect of the farm machinery loan
A18	18.01.2005	KCCs loan applicant submitted by the defendant to the applicant bank
A19	18.01.2005	Agreement and deed of hypothecation for Kisan credit card executed by the defendant in favour of the applicant bank
A20	18.01.2005	Simple mortgage deed executed by the defendant in favour of the applicant bank
A21 to A26	29.05.2007 10.05.2010 18.04.2013 30.09.2014 20.05.2017 30.12.2019	Letters of revival executed by the defendant in favour of the applicant bank in respect of the KCCs loan
A27 & A28	--------	Certified account extract of the defendant maintained by the applicant bank in usual and ordinary course of business

¶73

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil -

¶74

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil -

¶75

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Mahadeva Swamy K P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Mahadeva Swamy K P

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

Hdfc Bank versus Ashok Kumar

Canara Bank versus Amarjit Singh

Ajay Kashyap versus Piramal Capital

Ms Hi Tech Constructions versus State Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Lal Babu Singh

Isaac john gill versus Bank of Baroda