Allowed

Canara Bank v. Narasimha Rao

DRT27 Oct 2025OA/1671/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an exparte proceedings under RDB Act, the Tribunal allowed a recovery application filed by Canara Bank against a defaulting borrower. The Tribunal reduced the interest rate to 6% p.a. and authorized recovery from personal assets and schedule properties. The defendant failed to appear or rebut the evidence.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs.20,28,412/- with 6% p.a. simple interest to be recovered from defendant's personal assets and schedule properties.

Canara Bank versus Narasimha Rao — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of October, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1671/2023

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank Branch Office at: Maski, Basavanagouda Building, New Bazar, Maski, Lingasugur Taluk, Raichur District- 584124

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. Narasimha Rao, S/o Sri. Krishna Meka, R.at: Venkataramana Camp, Sindhanur Taluk, Raichur District- 584124

¶9

...DEFENDANTS

¶10

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶11

Applicant : Veena R. Rai Defendants : Exparte

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

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

¶14

OA 1671/2023

¶15

¶16

Rs.20,28,412/- (Rupees twenty lakh twenty eight thousand four hundred twelve only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶17

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant availed the following credit facilities from the applicant bank:-

¶18

I. KCC Loan of a sum of Rs.99,000/- (Rupees Ninety nine lakh Only) and

¶19

II. Farm Development loan limit of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakh Only).

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with sanction letter, memorandum of agreement, simple mortgage deed and letters of revival in favor of the applicant bank.

¶21

It is further contended that, the defendant 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.

¶22

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this

¶23

OA 1671/2023

¶24

¶25

Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate

¶26

for the amount due in the account.

¶27

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 11.07.2024.

¶28

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-25 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶29

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary

¶30

evidence and the proof affidavit.

¶31

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶32

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶33

OA claim as against the defendant?

¶34

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶35

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶36

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶37

remains unrebutted as defendant remained exparte. The

¶38

OA 1671/2023

¶39

¶40

evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and

¶41

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.

¶42

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence

¶43

this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶44

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶45

are availed by defendant for agricultural purpose and also that

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

In the result, OA.No.1671/2023, stands allowed,

¶49

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶50

OA 1671/2023

¶51

¶52

sum of Rs.20,28,412/-(Rupees twenty lakh twenty eight thousand four hundred and twelve only)

¶53

from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendant personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceedings against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶54

(ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendant personally and his other assets are liable to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶55

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶56

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

¶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

in terms of 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

¶63

OA 1671/2023

¶64

¶65

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶66

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by

¶67

me in the Open Court, this the 27^th day of October, 2025].

¶68

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶69

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶70

ANNEXURES

¶71

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶72

AW-1: Mr. Parashuram L Bharamoji, Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶73

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶74

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	04.08.2011	Loan Application
A2	04.08.2011	Specimen signature card
A3	04.08.2011	Sanction letter
A4	04.08.2011	Agreement of hypothecation of agricultural loan
A5	17.07.2012	Loan application
A6	17.07.2012	Letter of renewal
A7	17.07.2012	Supplemental agreement
A8	04.07.2014	Letter of revival
A9	31.07.2014	Loan application
A10	31.07.2014	Sanction letter
A11	31.07.2014	Letter of renewal
A12	31.07.2014	Supplemental agreement
A13	03.09.2015	Loan application
A14	03.09.2015	Specimen signature card
A15	03.09.2015	Sanction memorandum
A16	03.09.2015	Memorandum of agreement of agricultural loans
A17	13.08.2015	Simple mortgage deed
A18	10.04.2016	Letter of revival

¶75

OA 1671/2023

¶76

¶77

A19	19.05.2018	Letter of revival
A20	15.05.2021	Letter of revival
A21	01.08.2018	Letter of revival
A22	29.07.2021	Letter of revival
A23		Statement of account in respect of KCCS loan along with interest sheet and certificate
A24		Statement of account in respect of FDL along with interest sheet and certificate
A25	22.05.2020	General power of attorney

¶78

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

¶79

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Narasimha Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Narasimha Rao

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 Smt Seema Rani

Canara Bank versus Sh. Sukhwant Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Ninder Singh

Anjali versus Uco Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/S De Rigueur Apparels Private Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S Aadinath Plastics