Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri. B Rohith Krishna Raju

DRT29 Aug 2025OA/1326/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed an Original Application filed by Canara Bank under Section 19 of the RDB Act to seek a Recovery Certificate against the respondent for outstanding loan dues. The respondent was in default after availing agricultural loans. The trial was conducted ex-parte. The Tribunal allowed the OA, permitting recovery of the principal amount plus interest at a reduced rate of 6% per annum

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued allowing recovery of Rs.76,60,569/- plus 6% simple interest from date of filing, executable against personal assets and mortgaged property.

Canara Bank versus Sri. B Rohith Krishna Raju — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 29^th Day of August, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1326/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

CANARA BANK having its Head office at No.112, J.C.Road, Bengaluru - 560 002, and having a Branch at Maski, Basavana Gouda Building, New Bazaar, Maski, Raichur District - 584 124, represented by its Manager and Constituted Attorney Mr.Parasuram L Bharamoji … APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. B. Rohith Krishna Raju Aged about 27 years S/o. Sri. B. Ravindra Varma R/o. Baggalagudda, Lingasugur Taluk, Raichur District – 584124 ..DEFENDANT

¶9

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶10

Applicant : Sri. Veena R Rai Defendant : Exparte

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

The present Original Application in (short) OA has been

¶13

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

¶14

2 OA/1326/2023

¶15

defendant for Rs.76,60,569/- (Rupees Seventy Six Lakh Sixty Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Nine Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶16

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

¶17

i. Kisan Credit Card scheme loan of Rs.5,00,000/ii. Horticulture Plantation loan of Rs.25,00,000/-

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 06.01.2025.

¶22

3 OA/1326/2023

¶23

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 A17 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶24

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.

¶25

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶26

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendant? ii) What order are to be passed?

¶27

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶28

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶29

remains unrebutted as defendant 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 accounts. The liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the

¶30

4 OA/1326/2023

¶31

applicant is well within the limitation.

¶32

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶33

was availed for agriculture 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% (simple).

¶34

Hence in view of the above finding which cover both the issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶35

In the result, OA.No.1326/2023 stands allowed,

¶36

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶37

sum of Rs.76,60,569/- (Rupees Seventy Six Lakh Sixty Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Nine only) with further interest of @ 6% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from

¶38

the defendant, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA allowed the same to

¶39

be recovered by proceeding against defendant personally and

¶40

also by proceeding against the schedule property. The schedule

¶41

property to the OA be the schedule property to the Recovery

¶42

5 OA/1326/2023

¶43

Certificate.

¶44

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

¶45

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the

¶46

defendant personally and other his assets are liable for all such

¶47

amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶48

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶49

which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶50

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

¶51

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶52

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

¶53

with this Final Order.

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶57

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 29^th Day of August 2025].

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶60

6 OA/1326/2023

¶61

ANNEXURES

¶62

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶63

AW-1: Sri. Parashuram L Bharamoji, Manager of the applicant

¶64

bank.

¶65

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶66

Annexure	Date	Particulars
A1	21.01.2015	Loan application
A2	21.01.2015	Specimen signature card executed by defendant
A3	21.01.2015	Sanction memorandum
A4	21.01.2015	Agreement of hypothecation for agricultural loans
A5	20.01.2015	Simple mortgage deed executed by defendant
A6	29.06.2015	Application for loan executed by defendant
A7	29.06.2015	Specimen signature card executed by defendant
A8	29.06.2015	Sanction memorandum
A9	29.06.2015	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans
A10	27.06.2015	Simple mortgage deed
A11	20.01.2018	Letter of revival
A12	19.01.2021	Letter of revival
A13	01.06.2018	Letter of revival
A14	30.05.2021	Letter of revival
A15	-	Statement of account
A16	- -	Statement of account
A17	22.05.2020	Generalpower of attorney

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Sri. B Rohith Krishna Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri. B Rohith Krishna Raju

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