Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri.C.G.Mallikarjunappa

DRT25 Apr 2025OA/1665/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application for issuance of a recovery certificate against defendants who remained in ex parte for defaults on farm machinery and KCCS loans. The claim was proven via documentary evidence. The order confirms reduction of interest to 8% simple.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs.63,62,181 with 8% p.a. simple interest from filing date. Order to issue Recovery Certificate for execution against schedule and other assets.

Canara Bank versus Sri.C.G.Mallikarjunappa — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 25^th Day of April, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1665/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Nanjangudu Branch, Priya Complex, M.G. Road, Nanjangudu, Mysore District-571301 Represented by its Sr. Manager &

¶7

PA Holder Smt. Ashish Shukla … APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. C. G. Mallikarjunappa Aged about 45 years S/o. Sri. Late Gurusiddappa

¶10

Smt. Mahadevamma Aged about 65 years W/o. Sri. Late Gurusiddappa

¶11

Both are residing at: Chirakanahally Village, Gundlupet Taluk, Chamarajanagar District - 571123 ..DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : M/s. HSR & Associates Defendants : Exparte

¶14

2 OA/1665/2022

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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.63,62,181/- with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶17

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants have availed Farm Machinery Loan of Rs.5,66,000/- for the purpose of purchase of Tractor, Trailer and KCCS loan of Rs.1,25,000/-. It is also the case of the applicant that defendants have undertaken to repay the liabilities, subject to annual review or on Demand to pay with interest for the value received and further to pay the interest at such rate as revised by the bank from time to time.

¶18

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed the amount, the defendants have executed necessary loan documents.

¶19

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan accounts promptly and regularly, the defendants failed in complying the same, resulting in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶20

3 OA/1665/2022

¶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 exparte on 04.07.2024.

¶23

The applicant let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-3 to A23 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶24

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.

¶25

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶26

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants?

¶27

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶28

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶29

4 OA/1665/2022

¶30

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶31

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

¶32

Hence in view of the above finding which cover both the

¶33

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

¶34

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶35

was availed and also that the 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 8.00%p.a. (simple).

¶36

5 OA/1665/2022

¶37

13. In the result, OA.No.1665/2022 stands allowed,

¶38

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum

¶39

of Rs.63,62,181/- (Rupees Sixty Three Lakh Sixty Two Thousand

¶40

One Hundred Eighty One only) with further interest of 8.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against schedule properties. The schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

jointly, severally and personally and other their assets are liable

¶44

for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶45

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶49

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

¶50

6 OA/1665/2022

¶51

with this Final Order.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶59

ANNEXURES

¶60

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶61

AW-1: Sri. Girish H C, Manager & PA Holder of the applicant bank.

¶62

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶63

Annexure	Particulars	Date
A1	Applicant Evidence
A2	List of Documents
A3	GPA executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant No.1	29.10.2005
A4	Loan application submitted by the defendants to the applicant bank	29.11.2005
A5	Sanction memorandum	29.11.2005
A6	Memorandum of Agreement for agricultural loans executed by the defendant No.1 for self and as a GPA holder of the defendant No.2 in favour of the applicant bank	24.03.2006
A7	Simple Mortgage Deed executed by the defendant No.1 for self and as a	29.11.2005

¶64

7 OA/1665/2022

¶65

	GPA Holder of the defendant No.2 in favour of the applicant bank
A8 & A9	Registration Certificate of the Tractor and Trailer issued bythe RTO	28.02.2006
A10	Particulars of Vehicle/Machinery Hypothecated executed by the defendants in favour of the applicant bank	26.04.2006
A11 to A14	4 Nos. of Letter or Revival executed by the defendants in favour of applicant bank in respect of the Farm Machinery loan	21.08.2008, 13.08.2011, 01.08.2017, 21.07.2017
A15	Loan application submitted by the defendants to the applicant bank	13.05.2006
A16	Agreement and Deed of Hypothecation for KCCS loan executed by the defendant No.1 for self and as a GPA Holder of the defendant No.2 in favour of the applicant bank	29.05.2006
A17	Simple Mortgage Deed executed by the defendant No.1 for self and as a GPA Holder of the Defendant No.2 in favour of the applicant bank	13.05.2006
A18	Deed of correction executed by the defendant No.1 for self and as a GPA Holder of the defendant No.2 in favour of the applicant bank	22.06.2006
A19 to A21	3 Nos. of Letter of Revival executed by the defendants in favour of applicant bank in respect of the Farm Machinery loan	22.05.2008, 01.06.2011 01.08.2014, 27.07.2017
A22 & A23	Two Certified Account Extracts of the defendant No.1 in respect of both the loan accounts

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Sri.C.G.Mallikarjunappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri.C.G.Mallikarjunappa

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

M/S Sandeep Gupta Commission Agent versus Axis Bank

Canara Bank versus Smt,.Subhadrabai

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Highcity Infrastructures Pv Ltd. Rep by Its Directors Sri.R. Umashankar and Smt.H.Devika

Sreekala K S versus State Bank of India

Sri Umakanthraju C versus Srujana Vividoddesha Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha

Union Bank of India versus G S Chethan