Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mr. Bhimagouda Basavaraj Karaguppi

DRT12 Nov 2025OA/1238/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by a bank for the issuance of a Recovery Certificate regarding agricultural loans. The court found the applicant's evidence un-rebutted and proved the claim within limitation, awarding the principal amount plus future interest at a reduced simple rate of 6% p.a. while permitting recovery from scheduled properties and personal assets

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued; Principal sum of Rs.34,43,713.32 awarded with future interest at 6% p.a. (simple); Recovery from schedule properties and personal assets if necessary.

Canara Bank versus Mr. Bhimagouda Basavaraj Karaguppi — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE

¶2

Dated this 14^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH Hon’ble Presiding Officer

¶4

O.A.No.1238 of 2023

¶5

Canara Bank, Konnur Branch, Gogak Taluk, Dist. Belagavi. Through its Branch Manager, Mr.Nilesh Maruti Jadhav. … Applicant.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mr.Bhimagouda Basavaraj Karaguppi, S/o. Basavaraj Karaguppi, Avargol Village, Taluk Hakkeri, Dist.Belgavi – 591 309.

¶8

Mr.Satteppa Basavaraj Karaguppi, S/o. Basavaraj Karaguppi, Avargol Village, Taluk Hakkeri, Dist.Belgavi – 591 309. … Defendants.

¶9

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.Venu K.V. Defendants : Exparte.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The Application is filed under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts

¶12

And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for a sum of (i)Rs.22,79,188.32 together with further interest @12.40% compounded Half Yearly in respect of

¶13

¶14

A/c.No.0446897000243 from 26.04.2023 till the date of realization

¶15

and (ii)Rs.11,64,525/- together with further interest @11.25% compounded Half Yearly in respect of A/c.No.182000124436 from 01.04.2023 till the date of realization totaling Rs.34,43,713.32 together with costs from the defendants jointly and severally and by way of sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶16

The Applicant contends that the defendants approached the applicant bank for financial assistance of Rs.6,40,000/- for agricultural purpose under Kisan Credit Card and availed the same on 24.08.2017 by execution of necessary loan documents including Agreement and Deed of Hypothecation coupled with Simple Mortgage Deed dt.23.08.2017 registered as Doc.No.HK1-1-038552017-18 in Sub-Registrar Office at Hukkeri in respect of schedule mentioned properties in favour of applicant. The defendants again approached the applicant bank for financial assistance of Rs.12,50,000/- for agricultural purpose under Kisan OD and availed the same on 28.09.2017 by execution of necessary loan documents including Agreement and Deed of Hypothecation coupled with Simple Mortgage Deed dt.18.09.2017 registered as Doc.No.HK1-1-047502017-18 in Sub-Registrar Office at Hukkeri in respect of schedule mentioned properties in favour of applicant.

¶17

¶18

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶19

The Applicant further contends that after availing the aforesaid facility, the defendants failed to regularize the said loan and hence the loan accounts of the defendants were declared as NonPerforming Asset. The applicant bank has also issued Legal Notice dt.19.06.2023 to the defendants. Despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendants failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant to make the defendants pay back the amount failed, forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶20

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 08.10.2024.

¶21

The Applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A11, got the same marked in evidence.

¶22

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶23

i) Whether the applicant succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the Defendants?

¶24

ii)If so, to what extent?

¶25

¶26

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶27

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the OA claim. Hence the Applicant is found to be entitled for the OA claim. The OA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶28

Since the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest with default interest and that the facilities are availed for agricultural purpose the pendent lite and future interest is awarded at simple rate that too at reduced rate of 6% p.a. (simple).

¶29

In view of the above

¶30

i) OA No.1238 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶31

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of (i)Rs.22,79,188.32 in respect of A/c.No.0446897000243 and (ii)Rs.11,64,525/- in respect of A/c.No.182000124436 totaling Rs.34,43,713.32 (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Forty Three Thousands Seven Hundred Thirteen and Thirty Two Paise only) together with interest @6% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization together with costs from the defendants jointly, severally and personally after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during

¶32

¶33

the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule mentioned properties. The schedule to the OA to be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶34

iii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient to clear the liability, then the Defendants are personally and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against for realization of respective dues.

¶35

iv) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the Recovery Officer to enable recovery of the dues as per the above terms.

¶36

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

¶37

vi) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶38

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶39

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14^th day of November, 2025)

¶40

Sd./- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶41

¶42

Applicant Witness:

¶43

AW1 –Mr. Nilesh Maruti Jadhav, Branch Manager, Applicant Bank.

¶44

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶45

Ext.A1 - Loan Application dt.24.08.2017. Ext.A2 - Sanction letter dt.24.08.2017. Ext.A3 - Agreement and Deed of Hypothecation for Kisan Credit Card dt.24.08.2017. Ext.A4 - Simple Mortgage Deed dt.23.08.2017. Ext.A5 - Loan Application dt.28.09.2017. Ext.A6 - Sanction letter dt.28.09.2017. Ext.A7 - Agreement and Deed of Hypothecation for Kissan OD dt.28.09.2017. Ext.A8 - Simple Mortgage Deed dt.18.09.2017. Ext.A9 - Legal Notice dt.19.06.2023. Ext.A10 - True Extract of Statement of Account A/c.No.0446897000243. Ext.A11 - True Extract of Statement of Account A/c.No.182000124436.

¶46

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶47

NIL

¶48

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants :

¶49

NIL

¶50

Sd./- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Mr. Bhimagouda Basavaraj Karaguppi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Mr. Bhimagouda Basavaraj Karaguppi

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Kala Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Malkeet Singh @Malkit Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Hopstop Private Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S Ambey India

State Bank of India versus Saravanan Mani

Canara Bank versus Mahantesh Arjun