Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri Shankarappa H Maradi

DRT29 Aug 2025OA/1507/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant bank's Original Application for a Recovery Certificate against the Defendant. The Court held the claim uncontroverted due to the defendant's absence, upheld the liability, and granted interest at a reduced rate of 6.00% p.a. on the principal amount along with recovery from schedule properties and personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.35,87,042.25 with interest at 6.00% p.a. (simple), recoverable from Defendant personally and schedule properties.

Canara Bank versus Sri Shankarappa H Maradi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA. No.1507/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Canara Bank Having its head office at No.112, J.C. Road, Bengaluru – 560002 and Having branch at Gajendragad, TMC 2435, 1^st Floor, Bhoomireddi Complex, Ron Road, Gajendragad, Gadag District – 582114 Rep. by its Senior Manager and Letter of Authority Holder Mr. Rahul Kapoor … APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Shankarappa H Maradi S/o. Sri. Hanamappa Maradi, Aged about 52 years R/o. Konasagar Village, Yalabrga Taluk, Koppal Distict ...DEFENDANT

¶10

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶11

Applicant : Sri. K. Raveendran Defendants : Exparte

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed

¶14

under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for

¶15

OA. No.1507/2022

¶16

¶17

seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendant for Rs.35,87,042.25 (Rupees Thirty Five Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Forty Two and Twenty Five Paise only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed Agri Term loan of Rs.4,50,000/- and KCCS loan of Rs.75,000/-.

¶19

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

¶20

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, 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 defendant, he failed to

¶23

OA. No.1507/2022

¶24

¶25

appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 27.02.2024.

¶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 A3 to A24 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

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.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

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

¶30

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶31

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶32

remains unrebutted as defendants 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

¶33

OA. No.1507/2022

¶34

¶35

proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well

¶36

within the limitation.

¶37

11. Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶38

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).

¶39

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.

¶40

In the result, OA.No.1507/2022 stands allowed,

¶41

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶42

of Rs.35,87,042.25 (Rupees Thirty Five Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Forty Two and Twenty Five Paise only) with further interest @ 6.00% p.a. (simple), from the date of filing OA till the realization from the defendant, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against defendant personally and also by proceeding against the schedule properties.

¶43

OA. No.1507/2022

¶44

¶45

The schedule property to the OA be the schedule property to the

¶46

Recovery Certificate.

¶47

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

¶48

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants

¶49

jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable

¶50

for all such amounts due under the loan account.

¶51

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶55

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

¶56

with this Final Order.

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶60

[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].

¶61

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶62

OA. No.1507/2022

¶63

ANNEXURES

¶64

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶65

AW-1: Mrs. Raheesa Khatib, Senior Manager of the applicant bank.

¶66

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶67

Annexure	Particulars	Date
A1	APPLICANT EVIDENCE	--
A2	List of documents	--
A3	Application for agricultural credit	23.03.2007
A4	Sanction letter	19.02.2007
A5	Simple mortgage deed	07.03.2007
A6	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loan	23.03.2007
A7	Application for agricultural credit	19.11.2007
A8	Sanction letter	19.11.2007
A9	Simple mortgage deed	12.11.2007
A10	Agreement of hypothecation for agricultural loans	19.11.2007
A11 & A12	letter of Revival	06.10.2009
A13 & A14	Letter of Revival	04.10.2012
A15 & A16	Letter of Revival	01.10.2015
A17	Letter of Revival	09.03.2017
A18	Letter of Revival	14.09.2018
A19	Letter of Revival	20.02.2020
A20	Letter of Revival	19.04.2021
A21	Legal notice	24.06.2022
A22	Statement of account in respect of Farm Machineryloan	--
A23	Statement of account in respect of KCCS loan	--

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Sri Shankarappa H Maradi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri Shankarappa H Maradi

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