Allowed

Canara Bank v. Siddalingappa

DRT25 Nov 2025OA/1461/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Canara Bank for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted evidence of loan availed, default, and admissible documents, granting recovery with reduced interest of 6% p.a. for agricultural purpose.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 49,28,771/- with future interest at 6% p.a. (simple) from filing date, recoverable from schedule properties and personal assets.

Canara Bank versus Siddalingappa — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA

¶2

AT BENGALURU

¶3

Dated this 25^th Day of November, 2025

¶4

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1461/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Head office at: No.112, JC road, Bengaluru

¶7

Having Branch at: Avinash Building, Gunj Road Near, Bdo Office Cinema Lane, Chittapur, Gulbarga/Kalaburgi – 585 211

¶8

Represented by Chief Manager Sri. Sankarapuram Raghu Kumar …APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Mr. Siddalingappa S/o. Basanagouda Malipatil Aged about 54 years R/o. Maradagi, Chittapur Taluk, Kalburgi District – 585 303

¶11

Mallikarjuna S/o. Basanagouda Malipatil Aged about 49 years R/o. Maradagi, Chittapur Taluk, Kalburgi District – 585 303 ...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Naveen Tao Defendants : Ex parte

OA-1461/2022

FINAL ORDER

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. 49,28,771/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy One Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed a Farm machinery loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) for purchase of tractor & trailer.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 20.11.2024.

¶23

OA-1461/2022

¶24

¶25

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-16 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶26

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.

¶27

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶28

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶29

claim as against the defendants?

¶30

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

OA-1461/2022

¶35

¶36

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

¶37

find both these issues are in favour of applicant and hence, this

¶38

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 at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal is the view that the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

¶41

In the result, OA.No.1461/2022 stands allowed,

¶42

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 49,28,771/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy One 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

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶46

OA-1461/2022

¶47

¶48

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶49

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

¶50

receipt of the order.

¶51

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

¶52

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶53

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

¶54

terms of this final order.

¶55

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

¶59

the Open Court, this the 25^th Day of November, 2025].

¶60

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA-1461/2022

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶65

AW-1: Sri. Siddaram Houde, S/o. Hanumanth Rao, Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶66

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶67

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	-----	Affidavit evidence
A2	-----	List of documents
A3	18.04.2005	Application for agricultural term loan-1071856002360
A4	18.04.2005	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loan
A5	16.04.2005	Simple mortgage deed registered as doc- 00180/2005-06 dated 16.04.2005, sub-registrar, Chittapur
A6	28.01.2008	Letter of revival
A7	28.01.2008	Letter of revival
A8	10.01.2011	Letter of revival
A9	01.11.2013	Letter of revival
A10	31.10.2016	Letter of revival
A11	03.03.2019	Letter of revival
A12	10.02.2021	Letter of revival
A13	10.05.2022	Legal notice along with postal receipt
A14	-----	Postal unserved returned cover
A15	-----	Postal unserved returned cover
A16	-----	Bank statement of a/c. 1071856002360

¶68

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶69

-Nil -

¶70

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶71

-Nil -

¶72

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Siddalingappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Siddalingappa

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

Basil Co. versus Kerala Gramin Bank

Uco Bank versus Sh. Bachchan Kumar Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Bhagwant Singh

Indu Kumari Pandey versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S K. K. Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Mr. Praveen