Allowed

Canara Bank v. Ambarish Venkappa

DRT28 Oct 2025OA/686/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for a recovery certificate. The bank proved credit facility availment and default via unmolested evidence against ex-parte defendants. The Tribunal awarded recovery of dues with interest reduced to 6% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate for Rs.48,91,337.86 plus 6% p.a. interest from filing date, recoverable jointly/severally and against schedule property.

Canara Bank versus Ambarish Venkappa — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 28^th Day of October, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

OA. No.686/2024

BETWEEN:

Canara Bank

Kulgod Branch Gokak Taluk, Dist. Belgaum Through its Senior Manager Mr. Harish Yamanappa Gadinaik

¶8

… APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Mr. Ambarish Venkatarav Naik S/o. Venkatarav Naik Aged about 44 years

¶11

Residign at: Munyal, Gokak Taluk, Belgaum-591136

¶12

Mr. Venkatarao Naik

¶13

S/o. Ramanagouda Naik Aged about 76 years Residing at: Munyal, Gokak Taluk, Belgaum-591136

¶14

Mr. Chandra Naik S/o. Venkatrao Naik Aged about 54 years

¶15

Residing at: Munyal, Gokak Taluk, Belgaum-591136

¶16

Mr. Anandrao Naik S/o. Venkatarao Naik Aged about 52 years

¶17

OA. No.686/2024

¶18

¶19

Residign at: Munyal, Gokak Taluk, Belgaum-591136

¶20

Mr. Vijakant Naik S/o. Venkatarao Naik Aged about 49 years Residign at: Munyal, Gokak Taluk, Belgaum-591136

¶21

...DEFENDANTS

¶22

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶23

Applicant : Mr. Venu K V Defendant : Exparte

¶24

:FINAL ORDER:

¶25

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.48,91,337.86 (Rupees Forty Eight Lakh Ninety One Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Seven and Eighty Six Paise only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶26

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed Kisan Credit Card facility of Rs.19,00,000/- on 27.12.2017 and Kisan OD facility of Rs.12,50,000/- on 27.02.2018.

¶27

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facilities, the defendants executed necessary loan

¶28

OA. No.686/2024

¶29

¶30

documents apart from the creation of security interest by way of mortgage over the Schedule property.

¶31

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 account as NPA.

¶32

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the accounts.

¶33

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 17.10.2024.

¶34

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A16 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶35

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.

¶36

OA. No.686/2024

¶37

¶38

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶39

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

¶40

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶41

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶42

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application 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 facilities as stated in the OA, creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. 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.

¶43

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.

¶44

OA. No.686/2024

¶45

¶46

12. Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶47

was availed for agriculture 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).

¶48

In the result, OA.No.686/2024 stands allowed,

¶49

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.48,91,337.86 (Rupees Forty Eight Lakh Ninety One Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Seven and Eighty Six Paise only) with further interest of 6.00% 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 property. The schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶50

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

¶51

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable

¶52

OA. No.686/2024

¶53

¶54

for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶55

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶59

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

¶60

with this Final Order.

¶61

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶62

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

¶63

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶64

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 28^th Day of October 2025].

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶67

ANNEXURES

¶68

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶69

AW-1: Mr. Harish Yamanappa Gadinaik, Senior Manager of the applicant bank.

¶70

OA. No.686/2024

¶71

¶72

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶73

Annexure	Particulars
A1	Applicant evidence
A2	List of documents
A3	Sanction letter dated 27.12.2017
A4	Agreement and Deed for Kisan Credit Card dated 27.12.2017
A5	Simple mortgage deed dated 22.12.2017
A6	letter of Revival dated 12.06.2019
A7	Letter of Revival dated 08.01.2021
A8	Letter of Revival dated 22.06.2023
A9	Sanction letter dated 27.02.2018
A10	Agreement and Deed for Kisan OD dated 27.02.2018
A11	Simple mortgage deed dated 17.02.2018
A12	Letter of Revival dated 08.01.2021
A13	Notice dated 23.02.2024
A14	True extract of statement of accounts
A15	True extract pf statement of accounts
A16	Statement showing total outstanding

¶74

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶75

Sd/-

Canara Bank v. Ambarish Venkappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Ambarish Venkappa

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

Canara Bank versus Aadinath Plastics

Canara Bank versus Harjit Singh

Bank of Baroda versus Sh. Sukhraj Singh

Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. versus Krishna Pratap Singh Chandel

Hdfc Bank versus Sunita Tayal

Sh Khusinder Singh versus Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank