Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri Ramappa S Lamani

DRT29 Aug 2025OA/364/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's original application for a Recovery Certificate. Since the defendants appeared ex parte and evidence was uncontroverted, the debt of Rs.53,79,530.10 was proven. The Tribunal awarded a lower interest rate of 6% p.a. and authorized recovery against schedule properties and inherited assets.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.53,79,530.10 with interest at 6% p.a.; recovery from schedule property and inherited assets.

Canara Bank versus Sri Ramappa S Lamani — Banking and Recovery | 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

¶4

Presiding Officer

OA. No.364/2022

BETWEEN:

CANARA BANK,

Shirahatti Branch, Kappatnavar Building, Shirahatti Post, Gadag District-582120 Rep. by its Assistant Manager

¶9

Sri. Ravi Garg … APPLICANT

¶10

AND:

¶11

Sri. Ramappa S Lamani

¶12

Deceased by his Legal Representative,

¶13

1(a) Smt. Shanthavva R Lamani W/o. Late Ramappa S Lamani

¶14

Major by age,

¶15

Sri. Lachappa Lamani S/o. Shankarappa Lamani,

¶16

Aged about 60 years,

¶17

Sri. Ramappa Dharmappa Naik, Deceased by his Legal Representatives

¶18

3(a) Smt. Paravva Ramappa Naik, W/o. Late Ramappa Dharmappa Naik, Major by age,

¶19

OA. No. 364/2022

¶20

¶21

All are residing at: Adarahalli Village, Shirahatti Taluk, Gadag Taluk

¶22

Smt. Paravva W/o. Sri. Ramanna Major by age, Residing at: Adaralli Village, Shirahatti Taluk, Gadag District

¶23

...DEFENDANTS

¶24

Counsel on record/appeared for: Applicant : Sri. M. Mohan Rao Defendants Nos. 1 & 3 : Deceased Defendants Nos.1(a), 3(a), 2 & 4 : Exparte

¶25

:FINAL ORDER:

¶26

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed

¶27

under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.53,79,530.10 (Rupees Fifty Three Lakh Seventy Nine Thousand

¶28

Five Hundred Thirty and Ten Paise only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶29

It is the case of the applicant that, Late Ramappa S Lamani, Late Ramappaa Dharmappa Naik and defendant No.2 have availed agricultural loan facility of Rs.4,46,000/- on 29.10.2002. The defendant No.4 stood as guarantor to the aforesaid credit facility.

¶30

OA. No. 364/2022

¶31

¶32

The deceased borrowers along with the defendant No.2, 4 had executed necessary loan documents in favour of the applicant bank as security for the due repayment of the loans, interest, cost and charges. The defendant No.1(a) and 3(a) have executed Revival letters in favour of the applicant bank.

¶33

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, the defendants failed in complying the same, resulting in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶34

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 as against the defendants.

¶35

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendant Nos.1(a), 2, 3(a) and 4 being set exparte on 10.12.2024.

¶36

The applicant let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A3 to A22 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶37

OA. No. 364/2022

¶38

¶39

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.

¶40

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶41

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶42

claim as against the defendants?

¶43

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶44

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶45

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application 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 facility 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 are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶46

OA. No. 364/2022

¶47

¶48

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the

¶49

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

¶50

Since the OA claim is arrived at by calculating agreed rate of interest, penal interest/default interest, which this Tribunal considers as on the higher side, pendentalite and future interest is awarded at reduced rate @ 6.00% p.a.

¶51

In the result, OA.No.364/2022 stands allowed,

¶52

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum

¶53

of Rs.53,79,530.10 (Rupees Fifty Three Lakh Seventy Nine Thousand Five Hundred Thirty and Ten Paise only) with further interest of 6.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, 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 the schedule property. The schedule property to the OA be the schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶54

ii) In the event, if the sale proceeds are not sufficient to

¶55

pay of the liability, the 2^nd and 4^th defendants and their assets and

¶56

OA. No. 364/2022

¶57

¶58

the defendant Nos.1(a) and 3(a) to the extent of estate inherited

¶59

by Late Ramappa S Lamani and Late Paravva Ramappa Naik are

¶60

liable to be proceeded against.

¶61

ii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶62

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

¶63

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

¶64

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶65

iv) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of

¶66

with this Final Order.

¶67

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶68

terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶69

[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].

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA. No. 364/2022

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶76

AW-1: Mr. Vallakati Amarendar, Manager of the applicant bank.

¶77

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶78

Annexure	Date	Particulars
A1	-	APPLICANT EVIDENCE
A2		List of documents
A3	29.10.2002	Loan application
A4	29.10.2002	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans for Rs.4,46,000/- executed by defendants in favour of the applicant bank
A5	30.10.2002	Delivery Note of Vehicle executed by defendants in favour of the applicant bank
A6	20.10.2005	Letter of Revival executed by defendants in favour of the applicant bank
A7	19.03.2008	Letter of Revival executed by defendants in favour of the applicant bank
A8	03.03.2011	Letter of Revival executed by deceased borrower Ramappa Lamani in favour of the applicant bank

¶79

OA. No. 364/2022

¶80

A9	14.03.2011	Letter of Revival executed defendants in favour of the appli bank	by cant
A10	23.06.2013	Letter of Revival executed defendants in favour of the appli bank	by cant
A11	08.08.2015	Letter of Revival executed deceased borrower Ramappa Lam and Defendant No.2 in favour of applicant bank	by ani the
	15.07.2018	Letter of Revival executed	by
A12		defendant No.2 in favour of applicant bank	the
	15.07.2018	Letter of Revival executed	by
A13		defendant No.1(a) in favour of applicant bank	the
	21.06.2021	Letter of Revival executed	by
A14		defendant No.2 and defendant N in favour of the applicant bank	o.4
	28.06.2013	Letter of Revival executed	by
A15		defendant No.3(a) in favour of applicant bank.	the
	15.07.2018	Letter of Revival executed	by
A16		defendant No.1(a) in favour of applicant bank	the
	15.07.2018	Letter of Revival executed	by
A17		defendant No.1(a) in favour of applicant bank	the

¶81

OA. No. 364/2022

¶82

¶83

	21.06.2021	Letter of Revival	executed	by
A18		defendant No.1(a) in applicant bank	favour of	the
	21.06.2021	Letter of Revival	executed	by
A19		defendant No.3(a) in applicant bank	favour of	the
A20	01.09.2013	Notice issued by app the defendants	licant bank	to
A21	--	RTC Extract in respect Asset	of unchar	ged
A22	--	Statement of Account

¶84

Sd/-

¶85

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Sri Ramappa S Lamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri Ramappa S Lamani

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