Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Mallikarjuna

DRT26 Sept 2025OA/221/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application seeking a recovery certificate. The defendants appeared ex parte. The applicant proved loan avancement, default, and security creation. The Tribunal allowed the claim with a reduced interest rate of 6% p.a. and ordered recovery from joint assets.

What did the court decide?

Order passed allowing recovery of Rs. 29,33,847.96 with 6% p.a. simple interest from the date of filing against defendants jointly, severely and personally, and directed issuance of recovery certifica

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Mallikarjuna — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 26^th Day of SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.221/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Karnataka Gramnina Bank Having its head office at: Gandhinagar, Ballari, Karnataka – 583 103 And Branches Amongst Others, One At: Pothnal, Manavi Taluk, Raichur District – 584 143

¶7

Represented By Manager

¶8

Smt. Amaramma S L …APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

1.Smt. Mallikarjuna S/o. Kallappa Aged about 63 years ,

¶11

Sri. Basavaraj S/o. Sharanappa, Aged about major,

¶12

Both residing at: R/o. Utakanur Village, Manavi Taluk

¶13

Raichur District – 584 138 ...DEFENDANTS

¶14

Counsel on record/appeared for: Applicant : Naveen Tao Defendants : Ex parte

OA-221/2024

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. 29,33,847.96/-(Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Seven And Paisa Ninety Six Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed the following credit facilities :

¶20

Tractor/trailer loan of Rs. 4,80,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty Thousand Only)

¶21

KCC-ST-converted loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only)

¶22

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 sanction memorandum, simple mortgage deed and memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans.

¶23

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.

¶24

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this

¶25

OA-221/2024

¶26

¶27

Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

¶28

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 07.02.2025

¶29

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-1 to A-25 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶30

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.

¶31

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶32

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶33

claim as against the defendants?

¶34

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶35

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶36

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained ex parte. 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,

¶37

OA-221/2024

¶38

¶39

creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

In the result, OA.No.221/2024 stands allowed,

¶47

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 29,33,847.96/-(Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Seven And Paisa Ninety Six Only) with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till

¶48

the realization, from the defendants jointly, severely and personally,

¶49

after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during

¶50

the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by

¶51

proceeding against schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA

¶52

OA-221/2024

¶53

¶54

be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶55

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

¶56

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants personally and their assets are liable for balance amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶57

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.

¶58

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

¶59

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶60

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

¶61

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶62

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

¶63

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶64

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 26^th Day of September, 2025].

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA-221/2024

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶71

AW-1 Smt. Amaramma S L, W/o. Vijappa working as Manager, of

¶72

Applicant Bank.

¶73

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶74

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	12.10.2010	Application For Tractor/Power Tiller/Other Farm Machinery Loan (A/C No. 78115325000310)
A2	07.12.2010	Sanction memorandum
A3	09.12.2010	Simple mortgage deed registered as document no. MNV-1-05655-2010-11, at the office of sub- registrar, manavi.
A4	13.12.2010	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans
A5	22.08.2013	Letter of revival
A6	04.08.2016	Letter of revival
A7	01.07.2019	Letter of revival
A8	20.04.2022	Two Letter of revival
A9	17.05.2014	Application form for PKCC (A/c no. 78115354027016)
A10	24.05.2014	Sanction memorandum
A11	12.06.2014	Simple mortgage deed registered as document no. MNV-1-02438-2014-15, at the office of sub– registrar, Manavi.
A12	17.06.2014	Request for agriculture overdraft facilities (PKCC)
A13	17.06.2014	Loan sanction conveying letter
A14	17.06.2014	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans
A15	12.06.2017	Letter of revival

¶75

OA-221/2024

¶76

¶77

A16	26.05.2020	Letter of revival
A17	26.04.2023	Two Letter of revival
A18	09.11.2023	Legal notice
A19	-------	Two postal receipts
A20	-------	One acknowledgement card served
A21	-------	One postal department confirmation of delivery by the postmaster
A22	-------	Old bank statement A/c 2010000003
A23	-------	Old bank statement A/c 10781131009673
A24	-------	Bank statement A/c no. 78115325000310
A25	--------	Bank statement A/c no. 78115354027016

¶78

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

-Nil -

-Nil -

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

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus Nagamma

Bank of Baroda versus Smt Vidyashri Srivasthav

Union Bank of India versus Ms Parexcell Softsource Pvt. Ltd.

Karur Vysya Bank versus Vijaya Sekhar Kasala

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Boralinge Gowda Dead by Lrs Smt Sharadamma

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank versus Rajendra Blakrishna Dalal