Allowed

Canara Bank v. Shankaramma

DRT25 Nov 2025OA/1195/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Canara Bank against four defendants for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The defendants appeared ex parte. The Tribunal reduced the agreed interest rate to 6.00% p.a. simple for the agricultural loan purpose.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.21,76,514/- with interest at 6.00% p.a. simple, recoverable jointly, severally, and personally from defendants and against schedule properties.

Canara Bank versus Shankaramma — 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 Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.1195/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Branch office at: Next to Government Hospital, Bidare Village, Kemablu Post, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, Karnataka-573111 Rep. by Chief Manager Sri. Y. Murali Krishna

¶7

… APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Smt. Shankaramma W/o. Boregowda Aged about 66 years,

¶10

Mr. V.B. Ahok kumar S/o. Boregowda Aged about 46 years,

¶11

Mr. V.B. Manjegowda S/o. Boregowda Aged about 43 years,

¶12

Mr. V.B. Kantharaju S/o. Boregowda Aged about 40 years,

¶13

All residing at: R/o. Valegerahally village post, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, Karnataka-573131

...DEFENDANTS

OA. No.1195/2023

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶18

Applicant : Sri. Naveen Tao Defendants : Exparte

¶19

:FINAL ORDER:

¶20

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.21,76,514/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Five Hundred and Fourteen Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶21

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed the Farm Development loan of Rs.1,50,000/- on 28.01.2009 and Sericulture loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 03.11.2009.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

OA. No.1195/2023

as NPA.

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.

¶28

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 20.11.2024.

¶29

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 A26 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶30

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.

¶31

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶32

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶33

claim as against the defendants?

¶34

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶35

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶36

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶37

OA. No.1195/2023

¶38

¶39

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 security interest as claimed by the 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.

¶40

11. Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the

¶41

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

¶42

12. Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶43

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%

p.a.(simple).

OA. No.1195/2023

In the result, OA.No.1195/2023 stands allowed,

¶48

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶49

of Rs.21,76,514/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Five Hundred and Fourteen Only) with further interest of 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.

¶50

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

¶51

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.

¶52

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.

¶53

OA. No.1195/2023

¶54

¶55

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

¶56

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶57

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

¶58

with this Final Order.

¶59

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶60

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

¶61

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶62

[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].

¶63

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶64

ANNEXURES

¶65

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶66

AW-1: Sri. Y. Murali Krishna, Manager of the applicant bank.

¶67

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶68

Annexure	Date	Particulars
A3	20.01.2009	Simple mortgage deed
A4	28.01.2009	Common application for agricultural loans
A5	28.01.2009	Sanction memorandum
A6	28.01.2009	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans
A7	03.10.2011	Letter of Revival

¶69

OA. No.1195/2023

¶70

A8	21.07.2014	Letter of Revival
A9	06.10.2016	Letter of Revival
A10	04.07.2019	Letter of Revival
A11	01.07.2022	Two letters of Revival
A12	15.10.2009	Simple mortgage deed
A13	03.11.2009	Common application for agricultural loans
A14	03.11.2009	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans
A15	03.01.2012	Letter of Revival
A16	26.11.2014	Letter of Revival
A17	30.08.2017	Letter of Revival
A18	05.06.2020	Letter of Revival
A19	03.03.2023	Letter of Revival
A20	12.05.2023	Legal notice
A21 to A24	-	Four online postal tracking confirmation issued by the sub- postmaster
A25	-	Bank statement A/c. No. 1806883002919
A26	-	Bank statement A/c. No. 1806866003363

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Shankaramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Shankaramma

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