Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Mahesh N B

DRT19 Nov 2025OA/1736/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for a recovery certificate against the defendant for a agricultural loan default. The court confirmed the debt liability and approved a reduced interest rate of 6% p.a. simple for execution against personal assets or schedule properties.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 21,11,627/- with interest at 6% p.a. simple, recoverable from defendant's personal assets or schedule properties.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Mahesh N B — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 19^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA. No.1736/2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Karnataka Grameena Bank Branch office at Hirisave, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District – 573124, Rep. by its Branch Manager and Power of Attorney holder, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar … APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Mr. Mahesha N.B., S/o. Late Boregowda Aged about 50 years, No.41, Nimbehalli Village, Hirisave Hobli, Jinnenahalli Post, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District – 573116

¶10

...DEFENDANT

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : Sri. Kiran Mirajakar Defendant : Exparte

¶13

:FINAL ORDER:

¶14

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 defendant for

¶15

OA. No.1736/2024

¶16

¶17

Rs.21,11,627/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakh Eleven Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Seven Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant availed the Kissan Credit Card to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- on 16.10.2015 and Agricultural term loan under commercial poultry farming scheme to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- on 05.02.2016.

¶19

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

¶20

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan amount promptly and regularly, the defendant failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan account as NPA.

¶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

OA. No.1736/2024

¶23

¶24

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 09.07.2025.

¶25

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A17 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶26

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.

¶27

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶28

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶29

claim as against the defendant?

¶30

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant remained exparte. The evidence

¶33

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

¶34

OA. No.1736/2024

¶35

¶36

liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount due are also

¶37

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

¶38

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the

¶39

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

¶40

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶41

were availed for agriculture 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).

¶42

In the result, OA.No.1736/2024 stands allowed,

¶43

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶44

of Rs.21,11,627/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakh Eleven Thousand Six

¶45

Hundred and Twenty Seven Only) with further interest of 6.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from the defendant, 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 defendant personally and also

¶46

by proceeding against the schedule properties. The schedule

¶47

OA. No.1736/2024

¶48

¶49

properties to the OA be the schedule properties to the Recovery

¶50

Certificate.

¶51

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

¶52

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant personally and his other assets are liable for all such amounts due

¶53

under the loan accounts.

¶54

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶58

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

¶59

with this Final Order.

¶60

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶61

in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶62

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 19^th Day of November 2025].

¶63

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA. No.1736/2024

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶68

AW-1: Mr. Sachin Kamble, Manager of the applicant bank.

¶69

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶70

Annexure	Particulars
A1	Power of Attorney dated 03.04.2023
A2	Application form for crop loan facility under the Scheme of Kissan Credit Card dated 09.10.2015
A3	Sanction Letter Dated 16.10.2015 Along with Translated Copy
A4	Agreement of mortgage dated 16.10.2015 along with translated copy
A5	Registered mortgage deed dated 14.10.2015 along with translated copy
A6	Acknowledgments of debt dated 04.07.2018
A7	Acknowledgments of debt dated 30.03.2019
A8	Letter of revival dated 28.02.2022
A9	Application form for agricultural term loan facility dated 09.11.2015 along with translated copy
A10	Sanction letter dated 05.02.2016 along with translated copy
A11	Agreement of mortgage dated 05.02.2016
A12	Registered mortgage deed dated 02.02.2016 along with translated copy
A13	Acknowledgment of debt dated 04.07.2018
A14	Letter of revival dated 02.07.2021

¶71

OA. No.1736/2024

¶72

¶73

A15	Recall notice dated 11.08.2023 along with translated copy
A16	Acknowledgment card
	Statement of accounts along with certificate under
A17	Section 2A Bank (b) and 2A(c) of the Bankers’
	Books of Evidence Act, 1891 (as amended)

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Mahesh N B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Mahesh N B

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

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus Sh. Jagar @Jaggar Singh @Ujjagar Singh

State Bank of India versus Manjit Kaur

Ms Supreme Briquettes versus Hdfc Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Praveen

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Harjeet Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Raja Ram Mishra