Allowed

Canara Bank v. Dundappa Ballappa Giddali

DRT29 Aug 2025OA/196/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Canara Bank. The Tribunal held that the defendants failed to repay agricultural and personal loan facilities, resulting in defaults. Consequently, the Bank was granted a recovery certificate for the outstanding amount with reduced interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate for Rs.38,28,927.44 with 6.00% p.a. simple interest allowed, recoverable jointly, severally, and personally or via schedule properties.

Canara Bank versus Dundappa Ballappa Giddali — Arbitration | 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.196/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Kulgod Branch, Gokak Road, Mudalgi Taluk, Dist Belgavi, Through its Senior Manager

¶7

Mr. Harish Yamanappa Gadinaik … APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Mr. Dudappa Ballappa Giddali S/o. Ballappa Giddali Having address at:

¶10

Post Kulgod Village, Gokak Taluk Dist. Belgavi, Karnataka-591227

¶11

Mr. Irappa Bhimappa Baragundi S/o. Bhimappa Baragundi Having address at:

¶12

Post Kulgod Village, Gokak Taluk,

¶13

Dist. Belgavi, Karnataka-591227 ...DEFENDANTS

¶14

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶15

Applicant : Sri. Venu K V Defendants : Exparte

OA. No. 196/2023

FINAL ORDER

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 defendants for Rs.38,28,927.44 (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Seven and Forty Four Paise only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant No.1 as principal borrower and defendant No.2 as co-obligant have availed the following facilities:

¶21

i. Agricultural facility of Rs.1,23,000/- on 03.08.2007

¶22

ii. Kisan OD of Rs.5,00,000/- on 24.06.2011

¶23

iii. Credit facility of Rs.25,000/- on 26.04.2012

¶24

iv. Credit facility of Rs.67,700/- on 06.02.2013 v. Credit facility of Rs.6,80,000/- on 07.08.2014

¶25

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

¶26

OA. No. 196/2023

¶27

¶28

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit

¶29

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 accounts as NPA.

¶30

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the accounts.

¶31

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, though the defendant No.1 has appeared in person, but failed to file the written statement within stipulated time, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 07.11.2024.

¶32

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 A24 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶33

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.

¶34

OA. No. 196/2023

¶35

¶36

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶37

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants? ii) What order are to be passed?

¶38

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶39

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶40

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 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 liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶41

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶42

was availed for agriculture purpose and also that OA claim is

¶43

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%

OA. No. 196/2023

(simple).

Hence in view of the above finding which cover both the issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶48

In the result, OA.No.196/2023 stands allowed,

¶49

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.38,28,927.44 (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Seven and Forty Four Paise only) with further interest of 6.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from the defendants, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against defendants jointly, severally and personally and also by proceeding against the schedule properties. The schedule properties to the OA be the schedule properties to the Recovery Certificate.

¶50

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable

¶51

OA. No. 196/2023

¶52

¶53

for all such amounts due under the loan account.

¶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 29^th Day of August 2025].

¶63

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶64

ANNEXURES

¶65

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶66

AW-1: Harish Yamanappa Gadinaik, Senior Manager of the applicant bank.

¶67

OA. No. 196/2023

¶68

¶69

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶70

Annexure	Particulars
A1	Loan application dated 03.08.2007
A2	Sanction letter dated 03.08.2007
A3	Simple mortgage deed dated 02.08.2007
A4	Agreement and deed of hypothecation for kisan credit card dated 03.08.2007
A5	Application dated 31.05.2014
A6	Supplemental agreement dated 31.05.2014
A7	Simple mortgage deed dated 28.05.2014
A8	Loan application dated 24.06.2011
A9	Simple mortgage deed dated 24.06.2011
A10	Agreement and deed for kisan OD dated 28.06.2011
A11	Loan application dated 26.04.2012
A12	Sanction letter dated 26.04.2012
A13	Demandpromissorynote dated 26.04.2012
A14	Application dated 06.02.2013
A15	Agreement cum deed of hypothecation dated 06.02.2013
A16	Loan application dated 07.08.2014
A17	Simple mortgage deed dated 31.07.2014
A18	Memorandum of agreement dated 07.08.2014
A19	Notice dated 25.11.2022
A20	Statement of account
A21	Statement of account
A22	Statement of account
A23	Statement of account

¶71

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Dundappa Ballappa Giddali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Dundappa Ballappa Giddali

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