Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mr. Satteppa Balappa Sanadi Since Deceased through His Legal Heirs (a) Mr. Kempavva Satteppa Sanadi

DRT29 Aug 2025OA/376/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Canara Bank for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against the legal heirs of a deceased borrower. The Tribunal found the claim unrebuted and admissible, granting recovery of the principal amount with reduced interest at 6% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs.26,52,135/- with 6% p.a. interest from filing date against defendants and inherited assets, recoverable from schedule property.

Canara Bank versus Mr. Satteppa Balappa Sanadi… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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 Presiding Officer

OA. No.376/2023

BETWEEN:

Canara Bank

Konnur Branch

Gokak Branch Gokak Taluk, Dist Belgavi, Through its Branch Manager

¶9

Mr. Nilesh Maruti Jadhav … APPLICANT

¶10

AND:

¶11

Mr. Satteppa Balappa Sanadi

¶12

Since deceased through its legal heirs

¶13

(a) Mr. Kempavva Sattepa Sanadi Aged aobut 40 years

¶14

(b) Mr. Basavaraj Satteppa Sanadi Aged about 38 years

¶15

¶16

All are S/o. of late Satteppa Sanadi Having address at:

¶17

At & Post Tigadi Village, Taluk: Gokak Dist. Belgavi, Karnataka-591317

¶18

...DEFENDANTS

¶19

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶20

Applicant : Sri. Venu K V Defendant No.1 (a) to (c) : Exparte

OA. No. 376/2023

FINAL ORDER

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.26,52,135/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Fifty Two Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Five only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶25

It is the case of the applicant that, the Late borrower Satteppa Balappa Sanadi availed agricultural facility of Rs.7,43,000/- on 28.10.2005 for the purpose of purchase of tractors and other allied agricultural activities.

¶26

The deceased borrower 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 Late Satteppa Balappa Sanadi borrower had also executed Simple Mortgage Deed dated 28.10.2005.

¶27

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

OA. No. 376/2023

accounts as NPA.

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 legal heirs of deceased borrower.

¶32

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 07.11.2024.

¶33

The applicant let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A7 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶34

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the

¶35

contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and the proof affidavit.

¶36

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶37

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶38

claim as against the defendants?

¶39

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶40

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶41

OA. No. 376/2023

¶42

¶43

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶44

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.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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.

¶48

OA. No. 376/2023

¶49

¶50

In the result, OA.No.376/2023 stands allowed,

¶51

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum

¶52

of Rs.26,52,135/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Fifty Two Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Five 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.

¶53

ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient to clear the

¶54

liability, the defendants and their other assets to the extent to estate they had inherited from the deceased borrower and liable

¶55

for all such amounts due under the loan account.

¶56

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶57

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 and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶59

OA. No. 376/2023

¶60

¶61

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

¶62

with this Final Order.

¶63

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶64

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

¶65

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶66

[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].

¶67

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶68

ANNEXURES

¶69

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶70

AW-1: Mr. Nilesh Maruti Jadhav, Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

¶71

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶72

Annexure	Particulars
A1	Loan application dated 28.10.2005
A2	Simple mortgage dated 28.10.2005
A3	Letter of Revival dated 07.05.2015
A4	Letter of Revival dated 28.11.2017
A5	Letter of Revival dated 01.07.2020
A6	Legal notice dated 29.12.2022

¶73

OA. No. 376/2023

¶74

¶75

	True extract of	statement of accounts
A7	pertaining tot eh accounts	defendant aforesaid loan
A8	Certificate under S evidence act, 1891	ection 2a of banker’s book

¶76

Sd/-

¶77

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Mr. Satteppa Balappa Sanadi Since Deceased through His Legal Heirs (a) Mr. Kempavva Satteppa Sanadi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Mr. Satteppa Balappa Sanadi Since Deceased through His Legal Heirs (a) Mr. Kempavva Satteppa Sanadi

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