Allowed

Canara Bank v. Chikke Gowda v N

DRT27 Nov 2025OA/1380/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed Original Application filed by Canara Bank for recovery certificate against agricultural loan defaulters ex parte. Court reduced interest rate from agreed amount to 6% simple interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 26,53,583.70/- with interest at 6.00% simple p.a. from filing date, recoverable from defendants jointly and severally against scheduled properties.

Canara Bank versus Chikke Gowda v. N — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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 OA.No.1380/2023

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank Head office at: 112, JC road, Bangalore

¶6

Branches at: Government Hospital, Bidare Village, Kemablu Post, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, Karnataka – 573 111

¶7

Represented by Chief Manager

¶8

Sri. Y Murali Krishna …APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Mr. Chikke Gowda V N S/o. Late V R Nanjunde Gowda Aged about 51 years

¶11

Miss. Shilpa D/o. Chikkegowda V N Aged about 26 years

¶12

Mr. Varun Gowda S/o. Chikkegowda V N Aged about 21 years

¶13

All residing at: R/o. Valegerahally Village Post, Bagur Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, Karnataka – 573 131 ...DEFENDANTS

¶14

OA-1380/2023

¶15

¶16

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶17

Applicant : Naveen Tao Defendants : Ex parte

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking for issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 26,53,583.70/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Eight Three and Paisa Seventy Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that, the 1^st defendant availed an farm machinery loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) for agricultural purpose.

¶21

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

¶22

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, 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 accounts as NPA.

¶23

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this

¶24

Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for

¶25

OA-1380/2023

¶26

¶27

the amount due in the account.

¶28

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 15.02.2024.

¶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 A-1 to A-17 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 remains unrebutted as defendants 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 facility as stated in the OA, creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount

¶37

OA-1380/2023

¶38

¶39

due are also proved by the above document. The claim of the

¶40

applicant is well within the limitation.

¶41

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal find both these issues are in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶42

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility are 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

¶43

that the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

¶44

In the result, OA.No.1380/2023 stands allowed,

¶45

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of

¶46

Rs. 26,53,583.70/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand

¶47

Five Hundred and Eight Three and Paisa Seventy Only) with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally and 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 defendants

¶50

OA-1380/2023

¶51

¶52

jointly, severally and personally and their assets are liable for all such

¶53

amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶54

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶55

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

¶56

receipt of the order.

¶57

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

¶58

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶59

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

¶60

terms of this final order.

¶61

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶62

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

¶63

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶64

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27^th Day of November, 2025].

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶67

ANNEXURES WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶68

AW-1: Sri. Y Murali Krishna, S/o. Punnaiah, Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶69

OA-1380/2023

¶70

¶71

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶72

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	------	Affidavit evidence
A2	------	List of documents
A3	10.02.2005	Application for agricultural credit term loan (a/c. no. 1806856000398)
A4	10.02.2005	Sanction memorandum
A5	11.02.2005	Simple mortgage deed registered as document no. NUG-1-01677-2004-05, at the office of sub-registrar, Nuggehalli
A6	11.02.2005	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans
A7	24.10.2007	Letter of revival
A8	06.10.2010	Letter of revival
A9	23.09.2013	Letter of revival
A10	16.12.2015	Letter of revival
A11	16.03.2018	Letter of revival
A12	30.06.2020	Letter of revival
A13	06.05.2023	Legal notice
A14 A15	-----	Three postal cover returned unserved
A16
A17	-----	Bank statement a/c. no. 1806856000398

¶73

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶74

-Nil -

¶75

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶76

-Nil -

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Chikke Gowda v N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Chikke Gowda v N

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