Allowed

Canara Bank v. Doli Bai

DRT29 Aug 2025OA/300/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for a recovery certificate against three defendants for an agricultural loan default. The court reduced the interest rate to 6% p.a., granting recovery of principal plus reduced interest against the defendants personally and schedule property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate for Rs.20,05,116/- with interest at 6% p.a. from filing date, recoverable from defendants personally or schedule property.

Canara Bank versus Doli Bai — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 29^th Day of August, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.300/2022

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank Branch Office at: Kanakapura

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Smt. Dolibai W/o Jayaram Naika R/at Doddathandya, kasabha Hobli, Kanakapura Tq. Ramnagara District

¶9

Smt. Hamla Naik S/o. Somla Naik R/at Doddathandya, kasabha Hobli, Kanakapura Tq. Ramnagara District

¶10

Krishna Naik S/o Jayarama Naika R/at Doddathandya, kasabha Hobli, Kanakapura Tq. Ramnagara District

¶11

...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : K Vijendra Rao Defendants : Exparte

OA 300/2022

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.20,05,116/- (Rupees twenty lakh five thousand one hundred sixteen 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 the defendants No.1 & 2 availed the Farm Development credit facilities of Rs.4,46,000/from the applicant bank.

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above

¶20

amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with sanction memorandum, simple mortgage deed and letters of revival in favor of the Applicant Bank.

¶21

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 in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶22

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate

¶23

OA 300/2022

¶24

¶25

for the amount due in the account.

¶26

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they

¶27

failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 10.10.2023.

¶28

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-26 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶29

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered

¶30

the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and the 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 defendant?

¶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

¶36

remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and

¶37

undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of credit

¶38

OA 300/2022

¶39

¶40

facilities as stated in the OA, creation of hypothecation and

¶41

mortgage as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults

¶42

committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and

¶43

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

¶44

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this

¶45

Tribunal find both these issues in favor of applicant and hence

¶46

this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶47

12.12. Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶48

are availed by defendants for agricultural purpose and also that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal, in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced

¶49

interest @6% p.a. (simple).

¶50

In the result, OA.No.300/2022, stands allowed,

¶51

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶52

sum of Rs.20,05,116/- (Rupees twenty lakh five thousand one hundred sixteen only) with further interest @6% p.a. (Simple), from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and

¶53

OA 300/2022

¶54

¶55

received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same

¶56

to be recovered by proceedings against the schedule property.

¶57

Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶58

(ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendants personally and his other assets are liable to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶59

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶60

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

¶61

receipt of the order.

¶62

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

¶63

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶64

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

¶65

in terms of this final order.

¶66

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶67

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

¶68

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶69

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 29^th day of August, 2025].

¶70

PRESIDING OFFICER

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

OA 300/2022

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶76

AW-1: Anooja, Manager, of the Applicant Bank.

¶77

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶78

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	--	Applicant Evidence
A2	--	List of Documents.
A3	12.08.2005	Common Application form NF-499 for credit facility fir agricultural loan
A4	12.08.2005	Enclosure to NF 499
A5	12.08.2005	Loan Sanction letter of applicant
A6	12.08.2005	Memorandum of agreement for Agricultural loans
A7		Quotation issued by Vinay Tractor Enterprises
A8	18.08.2005	Receipt Voucher issued by Vinay Tractor enterprises
A9	10.08.2005	Delivery Challon issued by Vinay Tractor enterprises
A10	10.06.2014	Delivery Challon issued by Vinay Tractor enterprises
A11	21.10.2005	Certificate of Registration form No.23 issued by RTO
A12	21.10.2005	Certificate of Registration form No.23 issued by RTO
A13	20.08.2005	Particulars of security hypothecated NF373
A14	06.08.2005	Simple Mortgage deed
A15	09.07.2008	Letter of Revival executed by defendants
A16	21.04.2011	Letter of Revival executed by defendants
A17	01.06.2013	Letter of Revival executed by defendants
A18	16.01.2016	Letter of Revival executed by defendants
A19	10.01.2019	Letter of Revival executed by defendants
A20	22.11.2010	Recall notice issued to defendant
A21	25.03.2011	Recall notice issued to defendant
A22	21.03.2013	Recall notice issued to defendant
A23	10.04.2013	Recall notice issued to defendant

¶79

OA 300/2022

¶80

¶81

A24	08.04.2021	Recall notice issued to defendant
A25	03.01.2022	Statement of Account for A/c No.005948567970
A26	05.01.2022	Certificate under Bankers Book of Evidence

¶82

Witness Examined for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶83

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶84

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Doli Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Doli Bai

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