Allowed

Canara Bank v. B S Balaramaiah

DRT27 Nov 2025OA/1605/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for a recovery certificate against four defendants for an agricultural loan of Rs. 4.30 Lakhs. Being on ex-parte, the Tribunal linked the claim, notes liablity, and allowed recovery of Rs. 21,79,260 plus simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.21,79,260 plus interest at 6% p.a. from filing date, recoverable jointly and severally from defendants and schedule properties.

Canara Bank versus B S Balaramaiah — Execution and Attachment | 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

¶4

Presiding Officer

OA. No.1605/2022

BETWEEN:

Canara Bank

Chikkanayakanahalli Branch, Chikkanyakanahalli Taluk, Tumakuru District, Rep. by its Manager Sri. Shylesh D.P. … APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Sri. B.S. Balaramaiah S/o. B.M. Sannaiah Aged about 56 years,

¶11

Sri. Raghu S/o. B.S. Balaramaiah Aged about 34 years,

¶12

Smt. Navinkumari D/o. B.S. Balaramaiah Aged about 32 years,

¶13

Sri. Arunkumar S/o. B.S. Balaramaiah Aged aobut 30 years,

¶14

All are residing at Badakegudlu village, Kandikere Hobli, C.N. Hally Taluk ...DEFENDANTS

¶15

OA. No.1605/2022

¶16

¶17

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶18

Applicant : Sri. Mohamed Afroze Ahamed Defendants : Exparte

¶19

:FINAL ORDER:

¶20

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.21,79,260/(Rupees Twenty One Lakh Seventy Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶21

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed a Farm Machinery loan of Rs.4,30,000/- for the purpose of Tractor and Trailer on 25.11.2005.

¶22

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facility, the defendants executed necessary loan documents. Apart from the creation of security interest by way of hypothecation and mortgage over the Schedule properties.

¶23

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

¶24

OA. No.1605/2022

¶25

¶26

default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan account as NPA.

¶27

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.

¶28

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 27.02.2025.

¶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 A3 to A20 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

OA. No.1605/2022

¶37

¶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 security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶39

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the

¶40

issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶41

12. Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶42

were availed for agricultural 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%

p.a.(simple).

OA. No.1605/2022

In the result, OA.No.1605/2022 stands allowed,

¶47

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.21,79,260/(Rupees Twenty One Lakh Seventy

¶48

Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Only) with further interest of 6.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization

¶49

from the defendants, 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 defendants jointly, severally and personally and also by proceeding against the schedule properties. The schedule properties to the OA be the schedule properties to the Recovery Certificate.

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶53

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶54

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

¶55

OA. No.1605/2022

¶56

¶57

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

¶58

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶59

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

¶60

with this Final Order.

¶61

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶62

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

¶63

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶64

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

¶65

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶66

ANNEXURES

¶67

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶68

AW-1: Sri. Varaprasad Basimalla, Chief Manager of the applicant bank.

¶69

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶70

Annexure	Date	Particulars
A3	25.11.2005	Loan application for farm machinery loan
A4	25.11.2005	Sanction memorandum
A5	25.11.2005	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans
A6	25.11.2005	The registered mortgage deed

¶71

OA. No.1605/2022

¶72

A7	28.11.2005	NF-373/1L particulars of machinery hypothecated
A8	15.11.2005	Copy of Proforma Invoice issued by Annapurneshwari Motors
A9	25.11.2005	Copy of quotation issued by Tiptur Trailer and Steel industries
A10	-	Xerox copy of the R.C. Book in respect to Tractor and Trailer issued by RTO Tumakuru vide bearing Regn.No.KA-44-T-733
A11	06.03.2008	Letter of Revival
A12	31.12.2009	Letter of Revival
A13	28.12.2012	Letter of Revival
A14	21.07.2014	Letter of Revival
A15	25.07.2016	Letter of Revival
A16	10.07.2019	Letter of Revival
A17	06.02.2021	Legal notice
A18	20.07.2022	Legal notice
A19	-	Postal receipt and RPAD postal acknowledgment
A20	-	Statement of account in FM loan – A/No.0530856007406

¶73

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. B S Balaramaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. B S Balaramaiah

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