Allowed

Canara Bank v. Satyabhama Patil

DRT12 Nov 2025OA/1619/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application filed under Section 19 of the RDB Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's claim for a recovery certificate against the deceased borrower's legal heirs for an aggregate sum of Rs. 52.61 lakhs, granting execution via sale of schedule property.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 52,61,942.03 with 6% simple interest from date of filing, executable against schedule property or inheritance proceeds.

Canara Bank versus Satyabhama Patil — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA

¶2

AT BENGALURU

¶3

Dated this 12^th Day of November, 2025

¶4

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶5

OA. No.1619/2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Canara bank Head office at: 112, JC road, Bangalore Branches at: Kalaburgi main 1^st Branch, Janata bazar building, super market, Kalburgi – 585 101

¶8

Rep: By Its Senior Manager, Mr. Satwant Singh …APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Smt. Satyabhama Patil D/o. Pandurangarao Patil Aged about 49 years

¶11

Mr. Hanumanth Rao S/o. Pandurangarao Patil Aged about 41 years

¶12

Mr. Rao Saheb S/o. Pandurangarao Patil Aged about 39 years

¶13

All are residing at: R/o. Benisirur village, Aland Taluk, Kalburgi District – 585 236 ...DEFENDANTS

¶14

OA. No. 1619/2023

¶15

¶16

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶17

Applicant : Naveen Tao Defendants : Ex parte

¶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 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 52,61,942.03/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Two and Paisa Three 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 are the legal heirs of the deceased borrower. The Late borrower Sri. Pandurangarao Patil and defendant no.1 availed a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) on 12.03.2007.

¶21

The deceased borrower executed necessary loan documents in favour of the applicant bank as security for the due repayment of the loans, interest, cost and charges. The Late borrower Sri. Pandurangarao Patil had also executed Simple Mortgage Deed dated 06.03.2007.

¶22

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and

¶23

OA. No. 1619/2023

¶24

¶25

regularly, the defendants failed in complying the same, resulting in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶26

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 as against the defendants.

¶27

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 08.10.2024.

¶28

The applicant let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A20 and got the same marked in evidence. 8. 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.

¶29

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶30

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶31

claim as against the defendants?

¶32

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶33

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶34

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶35

remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The

¶36

OA. No. 1619/2023

¶37

¶38

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 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

¶39

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

¶40

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the

¶41

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

¶42

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility are

¶43

availed for Agricultural purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal

¶44

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

¶45

In the result, OA.No.1619/2023 stands allowed,

¶46

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum

¶47

of Rs. 52,61,942.03/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Two and Paisa Three Only) with

¶48

OA. No. 1619/2023

¶49

¶50

further interest of 6.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants to the extent of their inheritance of any estate form the deceased borrower Late Sri. Pandurangarao Patil, 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 the schedule property. The schedule property to the OA be the schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶51

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

¶52

the liability, the defendants to the extent of their inherited form the deceased Sri. Pandurangarao Patil is liable to the proceeds against for the balance amount.

¶53

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order

¶54

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶55

V) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of with this Final Order.

¶56

OA. No. 1619/2023

¶57

¶58

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶59

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

¶60

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶61

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by

¶62

me in the Open Court, this the 12^th Day of November, 2025].

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶65

ANNEXURES

¶66

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶67

AW-1: Sri. Satwant Singh, S/o. Gurcharan Singh, Senior Manager of the applicant bank.

¶68

Annexure	Date	Particulars
A1	06.03.2007	Simple mortgage deed, registered as document no. ALD-1-02580-2006-07,at the office of sub- registrar,Aland
A2	12.03.2007	Common application agricultural credit (a/c. no. 0513840009096)
A3	12.03.2007	Agreement and deed of hypothecation for KCC
A4	12.03.2007	Sanction memorandum
A5	12.03.2007	Specimen signature card
A6	10.03.2010	Letter of revival
A7 & A8	01.03.2010	Two letter of revival
A9 & A10	01.02.2016	Two letters of revival
A11 & A12	15.06.2017	Two letters of revival (by Laxmi Bai, Hanumanth Rao And Rao Saheb)
A13	10.06.2020	Letter of revival byLaxmi Bai
A14	10.01.2023	Legal notice

¶69

OA. No. 1619/2023

¶70

¶71

A15	11.01.2023	Postal receipts
A16	-------	Postal acknowledgement card served on Rao Saheb
A17, A18	-------	Three postal covers returned unserved-refused
& A19
A20	--------	Bank statement of a/c. 0513840009096

¶72

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶73

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶74

-Nil -

¶75

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶76

-Nil -

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Satyabhama Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Satyabhama Patil

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Kala Singh

State Bank of India versus Sh. Malkeet Singh @Malkit Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Hopstop Private Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S Ambey India

State Bank of India versus Saravanan Mani

Canara Bank versus Mahantesh Arjun