Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Mallikarjuna

DRT29 Aug 2025OA/1768/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The case was heard ex parte as defendants failed to appear. Recovery was sanctioned reduced at 6% simple interest instead of the claimed rate.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 25,59,129.50 with 6.00% p.a. simple interest from filing date, recoverable from defendants joint, several and personally via schedule property.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Mallikarjuna — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 29^th Day of August, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1768/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Karnataka Grameena Bank, Yerigera Road Branch, ANR Towers, opposite west Police station, 1^st Floor, station road, Raichur District- 584133. represented by its Branch Manager, Mr. Mallikarjuna. S/o Umapathi, Aged about 33 years, Branch Manager.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Mr. Mallikarjuna, S/o Bandayya, Aged about 35 years, R/at, H. No. 12-6-587, L B S Nagara. Near Nagesh Coupan, Raichur District- 584101.

¶10

Mrs. Zansi Rani, W/o Shesha Reddy, Major, R/at. Anantha Ranganth Layout, Raichur District- 584101. ...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : Sri. Prakasha Hedge K Defendants : Exparte

OA 1768/2023

FINAL ORDER

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 against the defendants for Rs. 25,59,129.50 (Rupees Twenty Five lakh Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Nine and Paise Fifty Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶17

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed PKCC (Kissan Credit Card New) loan facility of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) and agricultural term loan of Rs. 3,00,000 (Rupees Three lakh Only).

¶18

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed the necessary loan documents along with memorandum of agreement, letters of revivals and simple mortgage deeds dated 13.02.2014 and 18.03.2014.

¶19

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

¶20

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for

¶21

OA 1768/2023

¶22

¶23

the amount due in the account.

¶24

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 07.01.2025.

¶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 A-3 to A-18 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 defendants?

¶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 defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered

¶33

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,

¶34

OA 1768/2023

¶35

¶36

creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the

¶37

accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount

¶38

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

¶39

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal

¶40

find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶41

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

In the result, OA.No.1768/2023, stands allowed,

¶45

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 25,59,129.50 (Rupees Twenty Five lakh Fifty Nine Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Nine and Paise Fifty Only) with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally & personally, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the

¶46

OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to

¶47

OA 1768/2023

¶48

¶49

the recovery certificate.

¶50

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

¶51

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally & personally and their assets are liable.

¶52

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶53

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

¶55

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶56

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

¶57

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶58

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

¶59

[Dictated to the Stenographer (AJ), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 29^th Day of August, 2025].

¶60

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶61

PRESIDING OFFICER ANNEXURES

¶62

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶63

AW-1: Ms. Megha A.S D/o Appu R.S, Branch Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶64

OA 1768/2023

¶65

¶66

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶67

Exhibit Nos.	Particulars of Documents
A1	Application form cum appraisal report for KCC/ PKCC dated 31.01.2014
A2	Loan sanction conveying letter dated 20.02.2014
A3	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans dated 20.02.2014
A4	Letter of revival dated 17.02.2017
A5	Letter of revival dated 08.05.2019
A6	Letter of revival dated 11.11.2020
A7	Application form cum appraisal report for agricultural term loans dated 24.03.2014
A8	Loan sanction conveying letter dated 24.03.2014
A9	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans dated 24.03.2014
A10	Letter of revival dated 17.02.2017
A11	Letter of revival dated 24.07.2019
A12	Letter of revival dated 27.04.2022
A13	Simple mortgage deed dated 13.02.2014
A14	Simple mortgage deed dated 18.03.2014
A15	Statement of account in loan account No. 10864131000812
A16	Statement of account in loan A/c NO. 8641531510014
A17	Legal notice dated 08.09.2023
A18	Postal receipts

¶68

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

¶69

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Mallikarjuna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Mallikarjuna

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 Kavita

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Amit Kumar

Central Bank of India versus M/S Fortress Packaging Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Lanvin Exports versus Canara Bank

Mrs Gayathri S and Another versus Tumkur Grain Merchants Cooperative Bank Limited

K R Nagesh versus Katta Radhakrishnaiah Nagesh