Allowed

Canara Bank v. Govinda Reddy

DRT22 Aug 2025OA/159/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for a recovery certificate. Upon default by individuals on agricultural loans (Land Development, Irrigation, SKCC) after the bank amalgamated syndicate bank, the court issued a certificate for principal and reduced interest despite defendants being absent.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate for Rs 45,74,440 plus 6% simple interest authorised. Recovery from personal assets or schedule properties permitted. Cost of proceedings allowed to applicant.

Canara Bank versus Govinda Reddy — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 22^ND Day of August, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.159/2023

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank

¶6

Branch Office at Sindhanur II, Door No. Tmc No.5-1-480 (old) & 5-1-480/1 (old), Bus Stand Road, Harsha Building, Shiva Complex, Sindhanur Tq, Raichur District

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Govinda Reddy S/o. Sri. Janna Reddy R/at: Belgurki, Sindhanoor, Raichur District- 584128

¶10

Sri. Venkata Reddy S/o. Sri. Janna Reddy R/at: Belgurki, Sindhanoor, Raichur District- 584128

¶11

Sri. Srinivas Reddy S/o. Sri. Janna Reddy R/at: Belgurki, Sindhanoor, Raichur District- 584128

¶12

Sri. Gangadharappa L Katiger S/o Sri. Lingappa R/at: Madirawar, Sindhanoor, Raichur District- 584128

...DEFENDANTS

OA 159-2023

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶17

Applicant : K. Raveendran Defendants : Exparte

¶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 issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.45,74,440/- (Rupees forty five lakh seventy four thousand four hundred forty only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants availed the following credit facilities from the erstwhile Syndicate Bank which later got amalgamated with Canara Bank.

¶21

I. Land Development Loan of a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Only),

¶22

II. Irrigation loan limit of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Only), and

¶23

III. SKCC Credit Loan limit of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only)

¶24

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendant executed necessary loan

¶25

¶26

OA 159-2023

¶27

documents along with loan agreements, guarantee agreements, simple mortgage deed in favor of the Applicant Bank.

¶28

It is further contended that, the defendants despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, failed in complying the same, resulting in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as 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 on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte 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 A-21 and 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 159-2023

¶34

¶35

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants?

¶36

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶37

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶38

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application 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 hypothecation and mortgage as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim as the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶39

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

¶40

OA 159-2023

¶41

¶42

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶43

are availed by defendants for agricultural purpose and also that

¶44

OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate,

¶45

this Tribunal, in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest @6% p.a.

¶46

In the result, OA.No.159/2023, stands allowed,

¶47

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶48

sum of Rs.45,74,440/- (Rupees forty five lakh seventy four

¶49

thousand four hundred forty only) with further interest @6% p.a. (Simple),

¶50

from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and

¶51

received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same

¶52

to be recovered by proceedings against the schedule property.

¶53

Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶54

(ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendants

¶55

personally and their other assets are liable to be proceeded

¶56

against for the balance amount.

¶57

OA 159-2023

¶58

¶59

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶60

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

¶61

receipt of the order.

¶62

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

¶63

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶64

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

¶65

in terms of this final order.

¶66

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶67

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

¶68

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶69

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 22^ND day of August, 2025].

¶70

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶71

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶72

ANNEXURES

¶73

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶74

AW-1: Sri. Srinivasa Gouda. T, Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶75

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶76

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	10.12.2014	Application for Agricultural Credit
A2	10.12.2014	Interview-cum-appraisal form horticultural plantation crops	for
A3	05.11.2014	Simple mortgage deed

¶77

OA 159-2023

¶78

¶79

A4	11.12.2014	Agreement for Agricultural advances
A5	11.12.2014	Deed of Guarantee for Agricultural
A6	16.12.2014	Receipt for release of loan
A7	22.12.2014	Receipt for release of loan
A8	11.12.2014	Receipt for release of loan
A9	17.03.2015	Application for agricultural credit
A10	27.02.2015	Simple mortgage deed executed by D1 to D3
A11	17.03.2015	Agreement for Agricultural Advances
A12	17.03.2015	Deed of guarantee for agricultural advances
A13	17.03.2015	Receipt for release of loan
A14	10.08.2016	Application for agricultural credit
A15	10.08.2016	Interview cum Assessment form for revised SKCC
A16	10.08.2016	Agreement for Agricultural Advances
A17	10.08.2016	Deed of Guarantee for Agricultural Advances
A18	31.03.2019	Acknowledgement of debt
A19		Statement of account in respect of land development loan account No.18058230003476
A20		Statement of account in respect of land development loan account No.18058210000473
A21		Statement of account in respect of SKCC Crop loan account No.18058010060361 along with the interest sheet and certificate.

¶80

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

¶81

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Govinda Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Govinda Reddy

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

Leelamma C S versus Federal Bank

Ajitha Reji versus Federal Bank

State Bank of India versus M/S Tirupati Associates, a Proprietary Concern Acting through Its Proprietor Shri Namdeo S/O Vishwanath Kadu

Smt Leelavathi versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Bank of India versus Amruth Hardware and Paints

Canara Bank versus Mahadevu