Allowed

Canara Bank v. Goudappa Hanumanthappa Huchareddy

DRT19 Jun 2025OA/440/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex parte proceeding, the DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery of a loan. The court held the claim undisputed and granted a recovery certificate for the principal, interest, and future interest, permitting execution against schedule properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.37,26,787/- with future interest at 16.70% p.a., recoverable from schedule properties and other joint and several assets.

Canara Bank versus Goudappa Hanumanthappa Huchareddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 19^th Day of June, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.440/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Having its head office at No.112, J C Road, Bangalore – 560002 And branch office at Raichur Main Branch-I, Opposite Vishal Mart, Lingasugur Road, Raichur – 584101, Karnataka State, Rep. by its Chief Manager and Principal Officer, Sri. B Suresh Kumar … APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. Srinivasa Major, S/o. Sri. Ashappa R/o. Athkur Village-584102 Raichur Taluk & District

¶9

Sri. Anjinayya Major, S/o. Sri. Hanumanthu R/o. Athkur Village-584102 Raichur Taluk & District ...DEFENDANTS

¶10

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶11

Applicant : Sri. T P Muthanna Defendants : Exparte

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

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

¶14

under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for

¶15

OA. No. 440/2022

¶16

¶17

seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.37,26,787/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Seven 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 have availed Minor Irrigation (ALMI) loan of Rs.3,50,000/- for purchase of pump set & PVC pipes on 16.04.2003.

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facilities, the defendants have executed necessary loan documents apart from the creation of security interest by way of mortgage and hypothecation over the Schedule properties.

¶20

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan amount promptly and regularly, the defendant failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶21

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.

¶22

OA. No. 440/2022

¶23

¶24

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 05.03.2024.

¶25

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A3 to A14 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶26

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.

¶27

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶28

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

¶29

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶30

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶31

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

¶32

applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. The

¶33

OA. No. 440/2022

¶34

¶35

liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount due is also

¶36

proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶37

Since the OA claim is arrived at by calculating agreed rate

¶38

of interest, penal interest/default interest, which this Tribunal considers as on the higher side, pendentalite and future interest is awarded at fixed rate.

¶39

Hence in view of the above finding which cover both the

¶40

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

¶41

In the result, OA.No.440/2022 stands allowed,

¶42

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶43

of Rs.37,26,787/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakh Twenty Six

¶44

Thousand Seven Hundred and Seven only) with further interest of 16.70% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization

¶45

from defendant, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against schedule properties. The schedule properties to the OA be the schedule properties to the

¶46

OA. No. 440/2022

¶47

¶48

Recovery Certificate.

¶49

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

¶50

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants

¶51

jointly, severally and personally and other assets are liable for all

¶52

such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶53

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶57

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶58

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

¶59

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 19^th Day of June 2025].

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, BENGALURU

OA. No. 440/2022

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶66

AW-1: Sri. D Manjunath, Manager of the applicant bank.

¶67

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶68

Annexure	Particulars
A1	Applicant Evidence
A2	List of Documents
A3	The comprehensive application-cum-appraisal report for minor irrigation/farm development/ land development activities submitted by defendant No.1 an d2 for Rs.3,50,000/- dated 16.04.2003
A4	The sanction letter for Rs.3,50,000/- dated 16.04.2003
A5	The memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans submitted by defendant No.1 and 2 dated 146.04.2003
A6	The simple mortgage deed executed by defendants dated 15.03.2003
A7	Letter of revival executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 dated 06.04.2006
A8	Letter of revival executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 dated 02.04.2009
A9	Letter of revival executed by defendant No.1 and 2 dated 12.01.2012
A10	Letter of Revival executed by defendant No.1 and 2 dated 24.11.2014
A11	Letter of revival by defendant No.1 and 2 dated 02.08.2017
A12	Letter of revival by defendant No.1 and 2 dated 01.06.2020
A13	Legal notice dated 14.12.2021
A14	The statement of account certified under Bankers’ Book of Evidence Act

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Goudappa Hanumanthappa Huchareddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Goudappa Hanumanthappa Huchareddy

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

Formost Center versus Hdfc Ltd.

M/s Md Kaif Poultry Feed versus Indian Bank

Smt Yasmeen versus Icici Bank Limited

Maheswari a versus Punjab National Bank

Canara Bank versus Smt. Laxmibai

State Bank of India versus Sri. Prabhakar Ranga