Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sannasiddappa Hanumappa Vaddar

DRT24 Oct 2025OA/264/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for a recovery certificate regarding an agricultural tractor loan. With the defendants appearing ex parte, the court held evidence uncontroverted, reduced agreed interest to 6% simple, and issued the certificate against jointly and severally liable heirs.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.51,37,680/- with 6% simple interest per annum, recovery from hypothecated property and personal assets of defendants jointly and severally.

Canara Bank versus Sannasiddappa Hanumappa Vaddar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of October, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.264/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Shirahatti Branch, At Shirahatti Town, Gadag District – 582120 Rep. by its Manager Sri. Ravi Garg

¶7

… APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sannasiddappa Hanumappa Vaddar S/o. Late Hanumappa Vaddar, Aged about 56 years,

¶10

Sri. Sannaramappa Hanumappa Vaddar, S/o. Late Hanumappa Vaddar, Aged about 58 years,

¶11

Sri. Honnappa Vaddar, S/o. Late Siddappa Hanumappa Vaddar, Aged about 20 years,

¶12

Smt. Kengavva Vaddar, W/o. Late Siddappa Hanumappa Vaddar, Ageda bout 41 years,

¶13

Smt. Siddavva

¶14

W/o. Late Ramappa Hanumappa Vaddar, Aged about 50 years

¶15

OA. No.264/2022

¶16

¶17

Smt. Pakeeravva W/o. Late Mallappa Hanumappa Vaddar, Aged about 45 years,

¶18

Sri. Mahantagouda K Patil S/o. Late Kotregouda Ninganagouda Patil, Aged about 55 years,

¶19

All residing at Adralli Village, Adralli Post, Shirahatti Taluk, Gadag District.

¶20

And also, at Nadigatti Village, Lakshmeshwara Hobli, Shirahatti Taluk, Gadag District

¶21

...DEFENDANTS

¶22

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶23

Applicant : Sri. V. Haridas Bhat Defendants : Exparte

¶24

:FINAL ORDER:

¶25

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.51,37,680/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Six Hundred only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶26

It is the case of the applicant that, in the year 2003, Siddappa, Ramappa, Sannasiddappa, Sannaramappa, Mallappa all sons of

¶27

OA. No.264/2022

¶28

¶29

Hanumappa Vaddar, availed the tractor loan of Rs.4,85,000/-. One Kotregouda Ninganagouda Patil was the co-obligant for the said loan. The abovesaid Siddappa, Ramappa and Mallappa, three of the coborrowers have expired, leaving behind the defendant Nos.3 to 6 as their legal heirs. The co-obligant Sri. Kotregouda Ninganagouda Patil has also expired, leaving behind the 7^th defendant as his legal heir.

¶30

It is the case of the applicant that, the deceased borrowers Siddappa, Ramppa, Mallappa and Kotregouda Ninganagouda Patil along with defendant Nos.1 and 2 have availed Tractor loan of Rs.4,85,000/- on 17.09.2003.

¶31

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facility, the deceased borrowers and defendants executed necessary loan documents. Apart from the creation of security interest by way of mortgage and hypothecation over the Schedule property. The legal heirs of deceased borrowers i.e. the defendant Nos.3 to 7 have executed Revival letters.

¶32

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, 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.

¶33

OA. No.264/2022

¶34

¶35

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.

¶36

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 21.09.2023.

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶40

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

¶41

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶42

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered

¶43

by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are

¶44

OA. No.264/2022

¶45

¶46

sufficient to prove availment of credit facility as stated in the OA,

¶47

creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. The liability of the defendants

¶48

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

¶49

12. Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the

¶50

issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶51

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was

¶52

availed for agriculture purpose and also that OA claim is arrived at

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

In the result, OA.No.264/2022 stands allowed,

¶56

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

¶57

Rs.51,37,680/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Six Hundred only) with further interest of 6.00% p.a.(simple) from the

¶58

date of filing OA till the realization from the defendants, after giving

¶59

credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency

¶60

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

¶61

OA. No.264/2022

¶62

¶63

against the hypotheca. The schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶64

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

¶65

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, defendants jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable for all such

¶66

amounts due under the loan account.

¶67

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶68

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

¶69

receipt of the order.

¶70

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

¶71

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶72

v) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of with this Final Order.

¶73

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶74

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

¶75

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶76

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 24^th Day of October 2025].

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA. No.264/2022

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶83

AW-1: Sri. Ramavtar Bairwa, Manager of the applicant bank.

¶84

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶85

Annexure	Date	Particulars
A1	17.09.2003	Loan application
A2	17.09.2003	Loan sanction letter
	17.09.2003	Memorandum of Agreement for
A3		Agricultural loan executed by the defendant Nos.1,2 and their brothers Siddappa, Ramappa and Mallappa and the deceased co-obligant Kotregouda Ninganagouda Patil
A4	20.09.2003	Particulars of hypothecated tractor
A5	-	Copy of the RC Book of the tractor
A6	-	Copy of the RC book of the trailer
A7	05.09.2006	Letter of Revival executed by defendant No.1, 2, Siddappa, Mallappa and Kotregouda Ninganagouda Patil
A8	25.04.2009	Letter of Revival executed by defendant No.5, Smt. Siddavva, W/o. Ramappa
	25.04.2009	Letter of Revival executed by defendant
A9		No.1, Siddappa, Mallappa and Kotregouda Ninganagouda Patil
A10	25.04.2009	Letter of Revival executed by defendant No.5
A11	16.11.2011	Letter of Revival executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2, Siddappa, Mallappa and Kotregouda Ninganagouda Patil
A12	18.10.2014	Letter of Revival executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2
A13	18.10.2014	Letter of Revival executed by defendant No.6
A14	18.10.2014	Letter of Revival executed by defendant Nos.3 and 5

¶86

OA. No.264/2022

¶87

A15	01.10.2017	Letter of Revival executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2
A16	01.10.2017	Letter of Revival executed by defendant Nos.3
A17	01.10.2017	Letter of Revival executed by defendant No.4
A18	01.10.2017	Letter of Revival executed by defendant No.7
A19	10.06.2020	Letter of Revival executed defendant No.4
A20	10.06.2020	Letter of Revival executed defendant No.4
A21	10.06.2020	Letter of Revival executed defendant No.6
A22	10.06.2020	Letter of Revival executed defendant No.7
A23	27.01.2022	Legal notice got issued by the applicant bank to the defendants.
A24	-	Statement of account in respect of Tractor loan account No.0458856000589

¶88

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Sannasiddappa Hanumappa Vaddar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sannasiddappa Hanumappa Vaddar

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 Raghbir Singh

Hdfc Bank versus Guzar Ahmad Wani

Punjab National Bank versus Sri Prasanta Ghosh

Ms North Malda Rice Mill and Anr. versus West Bengal Gramin Bank

Canara Bank versus Mayamma

State Bank of India versus Ravi. S