Allowed

Canara Bank v. Ranga Shetty

DRT24 Oct 2025OA/1453/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for a recovery certificate. Uncontested due to the defendant's absence, the Tribunal reduced the interest rate from the original claim to 6% simple interest. The applicant was granted recovery against the defendant personally and the schedule property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate allowed for Rs. 53,08,141/- plus 6% simple interest from filing date, executable against defendant personally and schedule property.

Canara Bank versus Ranga Shetty — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of October, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

OA.No.1453/2022

BETWEEN:

Canara Bank

Chamarajanagar Branch, Chamarajanagar – 571 313

¶8

Represented by its Manager and PA holder

¶9

Sri. Himanshu Kumar …APPLICANT

¶10

AND:

¶11

Sri. Ranga Shetty S/o. Masanna Shetty Aged about 66 Years

¶12

Residing At: Megalaundi Village, Chamarajanagara Taluk, & District – 571 313 ...DEFENDANT

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : HSR & Associates Defendant : Ex parte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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 defendant for

¶17

OA-1453/2022

¶18

¶19

Rs. 53,08,141/- (Rupees Fifty Three Lakhs Eight Thousand One

¶20

Hundred and Forty One Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶21

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant availed an farm machinery loan of Rs. 5,80,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Thousand Only) to purchase tractor and trailer for his agricultural operations on 12.11.2005.

¶22

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loan, the defendant executed the necessary loan documents along with mortgage deed and hypothecation.

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set ex parte on 28.10.2024.

¶26

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-13 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the

¶28

OA-1453/2022

¶29

¶30

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 claim as against the defendant?

¶33

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant 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 defendant and the claim of the amount

¶36

due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶37

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal

¶38

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

¶39

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility are

¶40

availed for Agricultural purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived

¶41

OA-1453/2022

¶42

¶43

at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal is the view

¶44

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

¶45

In the result, OA.No.1453/2022 stands allowed,

¶46

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

¶47

Rs. 53,08,141/- (Rupees Fifty Three Lakhs Eight Thousand One Hundred and Forty One Only)with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendant 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 schedule property. 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 amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant personally and his assets are liable for balance amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶49

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings 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 order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶51

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

¶52

OA-1453/2022

¶53

¶54

terms of this final order.

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶58

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 24^th Day of October, 2025].

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶61

ANNEXURES

¶62

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶63

AW-1: Vijaya Bhaskar, S/o. Sri Soma Sundaram, working as

¶64

Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶65

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶66

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	12.11.2005	Loan application submitted by the defendant to the applicant bank
A2	03.12.2005	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans executed by the defendant in favour of the applicant bank
A3	12.11.2005	Simple mortgage deed executed by the defendant in the favour of the applicant bank
A4 & A5	16.02.2006	Registration certificates of the tractor and trailer issued by the RTO Chamarajanagar
A6	08.12.2006	Particulars of the vehicles hypothecated executed by the defendant in favour of the applicant bank

¶67

OA-1453/2022

¶68

¶69

A7 to A12	28.11.2008 17.08.2011 10.07.2013 09.07.2015 18.11.2017 02.11.2020	6 nos. letters of revival executed by the defendant in favour of the applicant bank
A13	---------	Certified account extract of the defendant in respect of farm machinery loan account no.077856005964

¶70

Witness Examined for the Defendant: List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant:

-Nil -

-Nil -

Sd/-

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Ranga Shetty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Ranga Shetty

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 Raghbir Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Guzar Ahmad Wani

Punjab National Bank versus Sri Prasanta Ghosh

Ms North Malda Rice Mill and Anr. versus West Bengal Gramin Bank

Canara Bank versus Sannasiddappa Hanumappa Vaddar

Canara Bank versus Mayamma