Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Doddappa

DRT27 Nov 2025OA/1357/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by State Bank of India against three defendants for issuance of a recovery certificate. The court rejected the prayer for compound interest and penal interest, awarding simple interest at 7%.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate to be drawn for Rs. 20,11,272/- with 7% simple interest; future compound and penal interest declined.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Doddappa — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1357/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

State Bank of India, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Bangalore, Lending branch – Sindhanur (Raichur).

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. N Satyanarayana, S/o. Ramamurthy,

¶10

Sri. N. Srinivas, S/o. N. Satyanarayana,

¶11

Smt. N. Sunitha Devi D/o. N. Satyanarayana,

¶12

R/o. Hedgibal Camp, & also at Merinal village Taluq: Sindhanoor, District: Raichur -584128.

¶13

...DEFENDANTS

¶14

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶15

Applicant : Sri. G. N. Satyamurthy Defendants : Ex parte

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

The present Original Application in short “OA” has been

¶18

filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act

¶19

OA 1357/2022

¶20

¶21

1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 20,11,272/(Rupees twenty lakh eleven thousand two hundred seventy-two only) with further interest thereon and cost from the Defendants.

¶22

It is the case of the Applicant that Defendant No. 1 is the father of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Defendant No. 1 had availed a crop loan of Rs. 42,000/-, and he created a mortgage for Rs. 1,00,000/-. Accordingly, a KCC loan of Rs. 51,000/- was also availed by Defendant No. 1 for the purpose of growing paddy. Further, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 jointly availed an ATL facility to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh only) for the purchase of a tractor and trailer.

¶23

Further, the term loan was re-phased/rescheduled on 23.12.2010, wherein the overdue portion of Rs. 1,85,295/- was credited to the original account and debited to Re-phased Account No. 1. Again, the term loan was re-phased on 19.12.2011, wherein the overdue portion of Rs. 1,18,504/- was credited to the original account and debited to Re-phased Account No. 2. The KCC loan was closed on 25.08.2013, wherein the overdue amount of Rs. 1,03,086/- was credited to the original KCC account and debited to Re-phased Account No. 3.

¶24

It is also the case of the Applicant that, in view of the above

¶25

OA 1357/2022

¶26

¶27

loan, the Defendants executed necessary loan documents in favour of the Applicant bank to secure the loan and also had created mortgage over the schedule properties.

¶28

It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendants, despite availing the credit facility, after agreeing with the Terms and Conditions for the loan, failed in complying with the same, resulting in defaults and consequentially turning the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

¶29

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.

¶30

Despite service of summons to the Defendants, they failed to appear hence set ex parte on 24.10.2024.

¶31

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 A21, got the same marked in evidence.

¶32

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.

¶33

OA 1357/2022

¶34

¶35

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶36

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

¶37

ii) If so, to what extent?

¶38

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶39

The case put forth by the Applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as Defendants remained ex parte. The evidence tendered by the Applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidence put forth by the Applicant is found admissible and are sufficient to prove the averments made in the OA, and the defaults committed by the Defendants in repaying

¶40

the loan amount due. The liability of the Defendants and the loan amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the Applicant is well within the limitation.

¶41

Hence in view of the above findings this Tribunal comes

¶42

to the conclusion that the OA is liable to be allowed.

¶43

Taking into consideration the fact that the loan is availed

¶44

for agricultural purpose and also the fact that OA claim is arrived

¶45

OA 1357/2022

¶46

¶47

at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, pendente lite and

¶48

future interest is awarded at 7.00% (simple). The prayer for interest with monthly rests and for penal interest for the future period is hereby declined.

¶49

In the result, OA.No.1357/2022, is allowed,

¶50

i) The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum

¶51

of Rs. 20,11,272/- (Rupees twenty lakh eleven thousand two hundred seventy-two only) consisting of:

¶52

a). Rs. 2,61,610/- (Rupees two lakh sixty-one thousand

¶53

six hundred and ten only) from the Defendant No.1 with pendente lite and future interest of 7.00% p.a. (simple),

¶54

b). Rs. 17,49,662/- (Rupees seventeen lakh forty-nine thousand six hundred and sixty-two only) from Defendant

¶55

No.1 to 3 with pendente lite and future interest of 7.00%

¶56

p.a. (simple),

¶57

from 07.07.2022 till the realization, from the respective

¶58

Defendants jointly and severally after giving credit to all the

¶59

amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA

¶60

if any, and allow the same to be recovered by proceedings

¶61

OA 1357/2022

¶62

¶63

against schedule properties. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶64

ii) In the event of any shortfall, the defendants and their

¶65

other assets shall be liable to be proceeded against for the recovery of the respective balance amount due.

¶66

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶67

for which Applicant to file cost memo within seven days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶68

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

¶69

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶70

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

¶71

in terms of this final order.

¶72

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶73

in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶74

(Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27^th day of November, 2025)

¶75

Sd/(T. RAJESH)

¶76

PRESIDING OFFICER

OA 1357/2022

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶81

AW-1: Sri. Ravi Kumar SE, Chief Manager of Applicant Bank.

¶82

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶83

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	08.11.2006	Sanction letter
A2	08.11.2006	Hypothecation Agreement
A3	29.06.2007	Sanction letter
A4	29.06.2007	Hypothecation agreement
A5	07.11.2006	Registered mortgage deed
A6	15.06.2013	Revival letter
A7	24.03.2008	Application for loan
A8	24.03.2008	Sanction letter
A9	24.03.2008	Hypothecation Agreement
A10	27.02.2008	Registered mortgage Deed
A11	15.03.2011	Revival letter
A12	28.02.2017	Revival letter
A13	09.03.2014	Revival letter
A14	18.12.2021	Certified accounts extract
A15	18.12.2021	Certified accounts extract
A16	18.12.2021	Certified accounts extract
A17	18.12.2021	Certified accounts extract
A18	06.07.2022	Account closure summary
A19	06.07.2022	Account closure summary
A20	06.07.2022	Account closure summary
A21	06.07.2022	Account closure summary

¶84

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil - List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil -

¶85

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Doddappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Doddappa

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

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