Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri Vasanth Kumar

DRT19 Nov 2025OA/683/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application for a recovery certificate against three defendants for an agricultural loan default. The court granted the principal sum plus future interest at a reduced rate of 6% p.a. simple.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 38,27,454/- with further interest at 6% p.a. (simple) recoverable from schedule property and joint/several/personal assets.

Canara Bank versus Sri Vasanth Kumar — Banking and Recovery | 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 Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.683/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Hassan Main Branch, PO. No. 45, Near Narashimharaja Circle, Malnad House, Hassan H.O, Hassan, Karnataka – 573 201

¶7

Through its Senior Manager Mr. Hanumanthappa H …APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. M N Vasanth Kumar S/o. late. Narsimhe Gowda Aged about 35 years R/o. Madenuru Village, Hassan Taluk, Hassan Dist. Karnataka

¶10

Sri. M V Sandesh S/o. M N Vasanth Kumar Aged about 25 years R/o. Madenuru Village, Hassan Taluk, Hassan Dist. Karnataka

¶11

M V Sandeep S/o. Vasanth Kumar Aged about 23 years R/o. Madenuru Village, Hassan Taluk, Hassan Dist. Karnataka ...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : V S Associates Defendants : Ex parte

OA-683/2023

FINAL ORDER

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking for issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 38,27,454/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Four Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that, the 1^st defendant availed of following credit facilities:

¶19

1^st agricultural facility loan of Rs. 4,90,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Thousand Only) on 27.10.2005.

¶20

2^nd agricultural facility loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) on 24.09.2011.

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendant executed the necessary loan document along with simple mortgage deed.

¶22

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, 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 accounts as NPA.

¶23

OA-683/2023

¶24

¶25

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.

¶26

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 03.09.2024.

¶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 A-1 to A-12 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 remains

¶34

unrebutted as defendants remained ex parte. 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 facilities as stated in the OA, creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the

¶35

OA-683/2023

¶36

¶37

accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount

¶38

due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the

¶39

applicant is well within the limitation.

¶40

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal

¶41

find both these issues are in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶42

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶43

availed for Agricultural purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal is the view that the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

¶44

In the result, OA.No.683/2023 stands allowed,

¶45

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 38,27,454/- (rupees thirty eight lakhs twenty seven thousand four hundred and fifty four only) with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally and personally, 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 schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶46

OA-683/2023

¶47

¶48

If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the

¶49

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants

¶50

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

¶51

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶55

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in

¶56

terms of this final order.

¶57

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶58

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

¶59

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶60

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in

¶61

the Open Court, this the 19^th Day of November, 2025].

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA-683/2023

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶68

AW-1: Smt. Neha Maney, W/o. Naveen R, Officer, of Applicant Bank.

¶69

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶70

Exhibit	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	Loan application dated 27.10.2022 for sum of Rs. 4,90,000/-
A2	Sanction letter dated 22.06.2018 for sum of Rs. 4,90,000/-
A3	Simple mortgage deed dated 26.10.2005
A4	Agreement and memorandum for agreement for agricultural advances dated 27.10.2005
A5	Loan application dated 24.09.2011 for sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-
A6	Sanction letter dated 24.09.2011 for sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-
A7	Simple mortgage deed dated 23.09.2011
A8	Agreement for hypothecation for Kisan credit card dated 24.09.2011
A9	Letter of revival dated 12.07.2008, 01.07.2011, 22.01.2014, 10.01.2017, 31.12.2019, 11.04.2022 and for the consecutive account 23.08.2013, 30.06.2015, 22.06.2018, 31.12.2019
A10	Legal notice dated 11.01.2022
A11	True extract of statement of accounts pertaining to the defendants loan accounts 0531840014783
A12	True extract of statement of accounts pertaining to the defendants loan accounts 0531840014315

¶71

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶72

-Nil -

¶73

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶74

-Nil -

¶75

Sd/-

¶76

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Sri Vasanth Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri Vasanth Kumar

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