Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mahadevappa

DRT31 Dec 2025OA/252/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. The court found the application unopposed due to default in appearance by defendants. It awarded recovery of the principal and interest capped at 6% p.a. with costs.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.57,94,419/- plus interest at 6% p.a. from the filing date until realization, attachable against schedule properties and personal assets of respondent 2; respondent 1

Canara Bank versus Mahadevappa — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 31^th Day of December, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.252/2023

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank Kollegala Branch- 000795 P.B No.14, Atchams Mansion 7-4-34, Southern Extn Road, Kollegala- 571440, Chamrajangar District

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. K.M Mahadevappa S/o. Sum Maridevaru Since deceased by his legal heirs 1(a) Smt. Pankaja W/o Late K.M Mahadevappa

¶9

Sri. Shanthamallappa S/o. Veerathappa

¶10

Both are R/at: Matada Street Kunthur Village, Kollegal Taluk, Chamarajanagar District- 571440

¶11

...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Nandish NJ Defendants : Exparte

OA 252-2023

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 for Rs.57,94,419/- (Rupees fifty seven lakh ninety four thousand four hundred nineteen only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that Late K.M Mahadevappa was the deceased borrower with Defendant No.1(a) as his legal heir and defendant No.2 had availed the Agricultural loan credit facilities of Rs.5,57,000/- (Rupees five lakh fifty seven thousand only) from the applicant bank.

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with sanction letter, memorandum of agreement and letter of hypothecation in favor of the applicant bank.

¶20

It is further contended that, the defendants despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, failed in complying the same, resulting

¶21

¶22

OA 252-2023

¶23

in defaults 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, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 05.02.2024.

¶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-16 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and the proof affidavit.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶30

OA claim as against the defendant?

¶31

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶32

OA 252-2023

¶33

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶36

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 hypothecation and mortgage as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim as the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶37

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

¶38

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶39

are availed by Late K.M Mahadevappa and defendant No.2 for agricultural purpose and also that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal, in view of

¶40

OA 252-2023

¶41

¶42

the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest @6%

¶43

p.a.(Simple).

¶44

In the result, OA.No.252/2023, stands allowed,

¶45

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶46

sum of Rs.57,94,419/- (Rupees fifty seven lakh ninety four

¶47

thousand four hundred nineteen only) with further interest @6% p.a. (Simple),

¶48

from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendant

¶49

No.2 personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered

¶50

and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceedings against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶51

(ii) Being the legal heir, the defendant No.1(a) Smt.

¶52

Pankaja is liable to the extent of estate inherited by the deceased borrower.

¶53

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶54

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

¶55

OA 252-2023

¶56

¶57

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

¶58

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶59

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

¶60

in terms of this final order.

¶61

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶62

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

¶63

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶64

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 31^th day of December, 2025].

¶65

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶66

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶67

ANNEXURES

¶68

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶69

AW-1: D. Vijayasekar, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶70

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶71

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A3	07.01.2005	Application for agricultural credit
A4	07.01.2005	Sanction communication executed by D1 & 2
A5	07.01.2005	Memo of agreement for agricultural loan
A6	20.05.2005	Link letter of hypothecation
A7	07.01.2005	Particulars of co-obligant
A8	07.01.2005	Letter evidencing deposit of title deeds simple executed by D1 & 2
A9 to A14	19.12.2007 01.12.2010 18.11.2013	Letter of revival

¶72

OA 252-2023

¶73

¶74

	16.11.2016 15.03.2019 10.03.2022
A15	05.08.2022	Legal notice postal receipt and returned cover
16		Certified statement of account along with certificate
Witnes	s Examined fo	r the Defendant: -Nil -
List of	Documents Ex	hibited for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶75

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Mahadevappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Mahadevappa

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

Idbi Bank versus Sri.Ramesh. B. Gowda

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Ramraj Grewal

Canara Bank versus Mr. Bhanu Tiwari

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Sri.Bheemaraya. N. Bhosale

Mrs Praveena Pattanashetti versus Union Bank of India

Mr Mohammad Ali Saifuddin Navalgund versus Idbi Bank