Allowed

Canara Bank v. Shivalingasarja B Desai

DRT25 Nov 2025OA/570/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Canara Bank seeking a Recovery Certificate. Since defendants appeared ex parte, the bank's evidence regarding loan default was accepted uncontested. The Court granted recovery of the principal amount plus reduced simple interest at 6% p.a. executable against the defendants and their property.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs. 86,44,593.38 plus 6% p.a. simple interest from the filing date, executable against respondents jointly and severally and their schedule properties.

Canara Bank versus Shivalingasarja B Desai — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 25^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.570/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Branch office at: Bhoomreddy Complex, Ron Road, Gajendragad, Gadag – 582114, Rep. by Senior Manager Mr. Rahul Kapoor …

¶7

… APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Mr. Shivalingasarja B Desai S/o. Balasahebasarja Aged about 51 years, R/o. Shantageri, Ron Taluk, Gadag – 582211

¶10

Smt. Lata Ramalingsarj Desai S/o. Late Ramalingsarj Desai Aged about 49 years R/o. Shantageri, Ron Taluk, Gadag – 582211

¶11

...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Sri. Naveen Tao Defendants : Exparte

¶14

:FINAL ORDER:

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

OA. No.570/2023

¶18

¶19

seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.86,44,593.38 (Rupees Eighty Six Lakh Forty Four Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Three and Thirty Eight Paisa Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed the Kisan credit card scheme of Rs.30,00,000/- on 26.06.2014 for agricultural purpose.

¶21

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 over the Schedule properties.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

OA. No.570/2023

¶25

¶26

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 31.10.2023.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶30

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

¶31

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶32

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶33

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶34

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

¶35

OA. No.570/2023

¶36

¶37

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.

¶38

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.

¶39

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was availed 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 interest of 6.00% p.a.(simple).

¶40

In the result, OA.No.570/2023 stands allowed,

¶41

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶42

of Rs.86,44,593.38 (Rupees Eighty Six Lakh Forty Four Thousand

¶43

Five Hundred Ninety Three and Thirty Eight Paisa Only) with further interest of 6.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA

¶44

OA. No.570/2023

¶45

¶46

till the realization from the defendants, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA

¶47

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.

¶48

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

¶49

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶50

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶54

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

¶55

OA. No.570/2023

¶56

¶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

¶59

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶60

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 25^th Day of November 2025].

¶61

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶62

ANNEXURES

¶63

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶64

AW-1: Mr. L. Ch. Srinadh Kumar, Manager of the applicant bank.

¶65

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶66

Annexure	Particulars
A3	Special Power of Attorney Dated 18.06.2014
A4	Application cum Appraisal report dated 26.06.2014 for agricultural loan
A5	Agreement and deed of hypothecation for KCC dated 26.06.2014
A6	Sanction memorandum dated 26.06.2014
A7	Simple mortgage deed dated 20.06.2014
A8	Letter of revival dated 07.06.2017
A9	Letter of revival dated 27.03.2020
A10	Letter of revival dated 04.04.2022

¶67

OA. No.570/2023

¶68

¶69

A11	Legal notice dated 09.11.2022
A12 & A13	Two postal returned unserved
A14	Bank statement of A/c.0512840005815

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Shivalingasarja B Desai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Shivalingasarja B Desai

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Basil Co. versus Kerala Gramin Bank

Uco Bank versus Sh. Bachchan Kumar Singh

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Bhagwant Singh

Indu Kumari Pandey versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S K. K. Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Mr. Praveen