Allowed

Canara Bank v. Vaishali Sadashiv Deshinge

DRT31 Dec 2025OA/728/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Canara Bank for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against three defendants (one borrower, two guarantors) for an agricultural loan. The defendants did not appear. The court reduced the interest rate to 6% simple p.a. and allowed recovery from movable/immovable properties.

What did the court decide?

Allowed issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 3,69,16,690.53 plus 6% simple interest from filing date, recoverable from defendants jointly and severally against schedule properties and personal ass

Canara Bank versus Vaishali Sadashiv Deshinge — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 31^st Day of December, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.728/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank, Ankali Road, Opposite to Old Police Station, Raibagh- 591 317.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Vaishali Sadashiv Deshinge, W/o Sadshiv Vasant Deshinge, Jalalpur Road Sai nagar, Raibag, Belgaum, Karnataka- 591317.

¶10

Sadashiv Vasant Deshinge, 49, Shivaji P K P S Bank, Bhiradi, Raibag, Belgaum, Karnataka- 591217.

¶11

Kashinath Yalagouda Patil, S/o Yalagouda Patil, 3 No. Canal Road, Anebai Kodi, Bhiradi, Raibag, Belgaum, Karnataka- 591217.

¶12

...DEFENDANTS

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : S B Srikanth Defendants : EXPARTE

OA 728/2022

FINAL ORDER

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance

¶19

of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 3,69,16,690.53 (Rupees Three Crore Sixty Nine Lakh Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred Ninety and Paise Fifty Three Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant No.1 as borrower and defendant Nos. 2 & 3 as guarantors availed a sum of Rs. 2.5 crores for the purpose of setting a poultry unit.

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with deed of guarantee and simple mortgage deed.

¶22

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

¶23

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal

¶24

by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

¶25

Despite, Summons on defendants they failed to appear resulting the defendants being set exparte on 06.02.2024.

¶26

OA 728/2022

¶27

¶28

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-16 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶29

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.

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶31

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

¶32

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶33

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶34

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 the security interest 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.

¶35

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

¶36

find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of

¶37

OA 728/2022

¶38

¶39

the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶40

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶41

availed for Agriculture purpose and also that the 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% (simple).

¶42

In the result, OA.No.728/2022, stands allowed,

¶43

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 3,69,16,690.53 (Rupees Three Crore Sixty Nine Lakh Sixteen Thousand Six Hundred Ninety and Paise Fifty Three Only) with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally & personally, 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 property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶44

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally & personally and their assets are liable for respective amounts due under the respective loan accounts.

¶45

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings which

¶46

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

OA 728/2022

order.

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

¶51

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶52

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

¶53

of this final order.

¶54

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms

¶55

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

¶56

Rules, 1993.

¶57

[Dictated to the Stenographer (AJ), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 31^st Day of December, 2025].

¶58

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶59

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶60

ANNEXURES

¶61

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶62

AW-1: Gajanan Shankar Kuri, Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶63

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶64

Exhibit Nos.	Particulars of Documents
A1	Demand promissory notice 16.02.2017
A2	Project report
A3	Application dated 02.02.2017
A4	Sanction letter dated 10.02.2017
A5	Agreement for agricultural advances dated 10.02.2017
A6	Deed of guarantee dated 10.02.2017
A7	Deed of guarantee dated 10.02.2017
A8	Simple mortgage deed dated 02.02.2017

¶65

OA 728/2022

¶66

¶67

A9	Simple mortgage deed dated 07.02.2017
A10	Letter of undertaking dated 10.02.2017
A11	Certificate dated 10.02.2017
A12	Legal opinion date 05.12.2016
A13	Legal opinion date 10.02.2017
A14	Legal notice dated 05.01.2022
A15	Valuation report dated 13.02.2017
A16	Statement of account

¶68

Witness Examined for the Defendants: List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

-Nil -

-Nil –

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Vaishali Sadashiv Deshinge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Vaishali Sadashiv Deshinge

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

Idbi Bank versus Sri.Ramesh. B. Gowda

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Ramraj Grewal

Canara Bank versus Mr. Bhanu Tiwari

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Sri.Bheemaraya. N. Bhosale

Mrs Praveena Pattanashetti versus Union Bank of India

Mr Mohammad Ali Saifuddin Navalgund versus Idbi Bank