Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Neelamma

DRT28 Nov 2025OA/1769/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application seeking a recovery certificate against a defendant who defaulted on agricultural loans. The defendant appeared ex parte. The Court fixed reduced simple interest at 6% p.a., permitting recovery from personal assets or scheduled property.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is allowed to recover Rs. 55,41,483.94 plus interest at 6% p.a. from the defendant personally and via schedule property, along with costs of proceedings.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Neelamma — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA

¶2

AT BENGALURU

¶3

Dated this 28^th Day of November, 2025

¶4

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶5

Presiding Officer

¶6

OA.No.1769/2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Karnataka Grameena Bank, Sirwar Branch, 1^st Floor, Shivani Complex, Main Road, near Deodurga Cross, Sirwar Taluk, Raichur District, Karnataka 584 129, Represented by its Senior manager, Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pandey, S/o Narendra Pandey, Aged about 34 years.

¶9

…APPLICANT

¶10

AND:

¶11

Smt. Neelamma, W/o Sri. Venkoba Matla, Aged Major, R/at. Ganadinni Village, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District- 584 129. ...DEFENDANT

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Prakasha Hegde K Defendant : Exparte

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under

¶16

section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendant for Rs. 55,41,483.94

¶17

OA 1769/2023

¶18

¶19

(Rupees Fifty Five Lakh Forty One Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Three and paise Ninety Three Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant availed farm mechanization loan of Rs. 4,85,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Eighty Five Thousand Only) and KCC limit of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only).

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with simple mortgage deed and letter of revival.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Despite, summon the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 29.07.2024.

¶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-25 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶26

OA 1769/2023

¶27

¶28

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.

¶29

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶30

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

¶31

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶32

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶33

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant 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 facilities as stated in the OA, creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶37

OA 1769/2023

¶38

¶39

availed for Agricultural purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at

¶40

by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

¶41

In the result, OA.No.1769/2023, stands allowed,

¶42

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.

¶43

55,41,483.94 (Rupees Fifty Five Lakh Forty One Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Three and paise Ninety Three Only) with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple) 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 proceeding against schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶44

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

¶45

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant personally

¶46

and his assets are liable for respective amounts due under the respective loan accounts.

¶47

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings which

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

OA 1769/2023

¶51

¶52

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms

¶53

of this final order.

¶54

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms

¶55

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

¶56

Rules, 1993.

¶57

[Dictated to the Stenographer (AJ), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 28^th Day of November, 2025].

¶58

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶59

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶60

ANNEXURES

¶61

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶62

AW-1: Yogesh Kumar Pandey, Branch Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶63

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶64

Exhibit Nos.	Particulars of Documents
A3	Loan application dated 03.05.2005
A4	FML sanction memorandum dated 08.06.2005
A5	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans dated 18.06.2005
A6	KCC limit loan application dated 26.07.2005
A7	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans dated 26.07.2005
A8	Simple mortgage deed dated 16.06.2005
A9	Letter of revival dated 02.05.2008
A10	Letter of revival dated 27.04.2011
A11	Letter of revival dated 28.12.2013
A12	Letter of revival dated 02.12.2016

¶65

OA 1769/2023

¶66

¶67

A13	Letter of revival dated 20.11.2019
A14	Letter of revival dated 11.05.2022
A15	Acknowledgement of security/ liability from mortgagors dated 24.03.2017
A16	Letter of revival dated 12.05.2008
A17	Letter of revival dated 27.04.2011
A18	Letter of revival dated 08.02.2014
A19	Letter of revival dated 02.01.2017
A20	Letter of revival dated 16.12.2019
A21	Letter of revival dated 11.05.2022
A22	Statement of account No. 2005000004 later renumbered as account No. 81915325000405
A23	Statement of account No. 2005000078 later renumbered as account No. 10819130000069 and later renumbered as account No. 8191535427812
A24	Legal notice dated 18.10.2023
A25	Postal receipt

¶68

Witness Examined for the Defendant:

¶69

-Nil -

¶70

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant:

¶71

-Nil -

¶72

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Neelamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Neelamma

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 (Corporation Bank) versus Vasantha Mary

Canara Bank versus Girithimappa G D

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus M/S Rapido Fashions

Ms Sandhya Granites versus Indian Overseas Bank

Ms Basaveshwara Rice Industries versus State Bank of India

Garudachala Properties Private Limited versus Capri Global Capital Limited