Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Virupanna Urf Viruaxappa

DRT25 Nov 2025OA/1788/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the applicant bank's original application filed under Section 19 of the RDB Act for a recovery certificate of Rs. 45,63,593.00 with reduced interest of 6% p.a. on an irrigation loan against the two defendants who appeared exparte.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 45,63,593.00 plus 6% p.a. interest against defendants jointly, severally and personally, along with recovery costs.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Virupanna Urf Viruaxappa — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 25^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1788/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Karnataka Grameena Bank, (E-Tungabhadra Gramin Bank), And interalia its Branch office at, Koppar Branch, Devadurga Taluk, Raichur District- 584111.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri Virupanna Urf Virupaxappa, S/o Mallanna, Aged about 50 years.

¶10

Sri. Basavarajappa, S/o Virupanna Police Patil, Aged about 55 years.

¶11

Both are residing at, Yatagal, Devadurga Taluk, Raichur District.

¶12

...DEFENDANTS

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : Mohamed Afroze Ahamed Defendants : EXPARTE

¶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 seeking issuance

¶17

of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 45,63,593.00

¶18

OA 1788/2023

¶19

¶20

(Rupees Forty Five Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Three Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶21

It is the case of the applicant bank, that the defendant No.1 as borrower and defendant No. 2 as Co-obligant availed irrigation loan of Rs. 4,10,000.00 (Rupees Four lakh Ten Thousand only)

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

Despite, Summons on defendants they failed to appear resulting the defendants being set exparte on 06.11.2024.

¶26

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-15 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the

¶28

OA 1788/2023

¶29

¶30

contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶31

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶32

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

¶33

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application 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

¶36

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 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.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶40

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

¶41

OA 1788/2023

¶42

¶43

calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view of the OA can

¶44

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

¶45

In the result, OA.No.1788/2023, stands allowed,

¶46

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

¶47

45,63,593.00 (Rupees Forty Five Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Three 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 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.

¶48

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally & personally and their assets are liable for amounts due under the loan account.

¶49

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶50

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

¶51

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

OA 1788/2023

of this final order.

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

¶56

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

¶57

Rules, 1993.

¶58

[Dictated to the Stenographer (AJ), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 25^th Day of November, 2025].

¶59

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶60

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶61

ANNEXURES

¶62

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶63

AW-1: Vishwanath, Branch Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶64

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶65

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A3	31.12.2004	Loan sanction letter
A4	12.01.2005	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loan executed by 1^stdefendant
A5	28.12.2004	Assets standing in name of the applicant and co- obligant executed by the 1^stdefendants
A6	10.01.2005	The registered mortgage deed
A7	06.06.2007	The registered mortgage deed
A8	27.12.2007	Letter of revival
A9	18.06.2010	Letter of revival
A10	03.05.2013	Letter of revival
A11	07.11.2015	Letter of revival
A12	02.11.2018	Letter of revival
A13	11.10.2021	Letter of revival
A14	10.06.2015	Acknowledgement of security/ liability dated executed by the 1^stdefendant

¶66

OA 1788/2023

¶67

¶68

A15 -- Statement of account in irrigation loan-I in A/ NO. 70515330004704 (old No 2004000047)

¶69

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

¶70

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Virupanna Urf Viruaxappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Virupanna Urf Viruaxappa

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

Basil Co. versus Kerala Gramin Bank

Uco Bank versus Sh. Bachchan Kumar Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Bhagwant Singh

Indu Kumari Pandey versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S K. K. Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Mr. Praveen