Allowed

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Shantgouda

DRT19 Nov 2025OA/501/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Recovery Certificate application filed by Karnataka Bank Ltd. for the recovery of a term loan of Rs.38.58 Lakhs plus interest. Defendants were heard ex parte. The claim was proved and allowed with reduced interest at 8% p.a. simple.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.38,58,619.37 with interest at 8% p.a. simple; recovery from defendants jointly, severally and personally or by sale of scheduled properties.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Shantgouda — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 19^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA. No.501/2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

The Karnataka Bank Ltd., Having its branch at Shorapur, First Floor, Bheemannappa Badiger Complex, Near TMC Bus Stand road, Shorapur – 585224, Yadgir, Dist., Karnataka, rep. by its Branch Manager, Sri. Kiran Kumar H …

¶8

… APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Mr. Shantgouda S/o. Bheemarayagouda Aged about 48 years Residing at: Housse No.1-892/9/2, Opp. PWD Quarters, Old. Jevargi Road, Kalaburi – 585102

¶11

Mr. Ningana Gouda S/o. Bheemarayagouda Ageda bout 38 years Residing at: Channapattana village, Godinal, Kakkera Hobli, Shorapur Taluk, Yadgir, Karnataka - 585290

¶12

...DEFENDANTS

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : Sri. Nithin Chandar M Defendants : Exparte

OA. No.501/2023

: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.38,58,619.37 (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Nineteen and Thirty Seven Paisa Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed the Term loan of Rs.40,00,000/- for expenses of Buffalo Farming Unit on 16.11.2019.

¶20

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

¶21

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 account as NPA.

¶22

OA. No.501/2023

¶23

¶24

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.

¶25

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 20.09.2023.

¶26

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 A15 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

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.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants?

¶30

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶33

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

¶34

OA. No.501/2023

¶35

¶36

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.

¶37

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶38

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was availed for commercial 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 interest of 8.00%

¶39

p.a.(simple).

¶40

In the result, OA.No.501/2023 stands allowed,

¶41

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶42

of Rs.38,58,619.37 (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Nineteen and Thirty Seven Paisa Only) with further

¶43

OA. No.501/2023

¶44

¶45

interest of 8.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from the defendants, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against defendants jointly, severally and personally and also by proceeding against the schedule properties. The schedule properties to the OA be the schedule properties to the Recovery Certificate.

¶46

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants

¶47

jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶48

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of

¶49

receipt of the order.

¶50

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

¶51

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶52

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

¶53

OA. No.501/2023

¶54

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶58

[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 November 2025].

¶59

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶60

ANNEXURES

¶61

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶62

AW-1: Mr. Kiran Kumar H, Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

¶63

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶64

Annexure	Particulars
A3	True copy of the power of attorney
A4	True copy of the sanction order bearing Ref.No. AGMS/R050/36678/2019-20/16.11.2019
A5	True copy of the term loan agreement dated 16.11.2019
A6	True copy of the said hypothecation letter dated 16.11.2019
A7	Tue copy of the hypothecation agreement dated Nil
A8	True copy of the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 13.11.2019

¶65

OA. No.501/2023

¶66

¶67

A9	True copy of the Deed of Mortgage dated 12.11.2019
A10	True copy of the Declaration by defendants dated 16.11.2019
A11	True copy of the Declaration dated 16.11.2019 by defendant No.1
A12	True copy of het Declaration dated 16.11.2019 by defendant No.2
A13, 13(a) to 13(b)	True copy of the demand notice and true copies of the postal receipts
A14, 14(at) to 14(b)	True copy of the legal notice and postal receipts
	Certified true extract of the said statement of
A15	account of the term loan A/c. No.7137001800062301 certified as per Bankers books of evidence

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Shantgouda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Shantgouda

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

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus Sh. Jagar @Jaggar Singh @Ujjagar Singh

State Bank of India versus Manjit Kaur

Ms Supreme Briquettes versus Hdfc Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Praveen

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Harjeet Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Raja Ram Mishra