Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri. S C Ravikumar Prop of Dodmane Poultry Farm

DRT25 Sept 2025OA/734/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application under S. 19 RDB Act. Despite reduced interest (10% p.a.), it granted a Recovery Certificate for the outstanding loan principal, allowable interest, and costs, to be executed against the defendants' personal assets and schedule properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 5,81,90,053.31 plus 10% p.a. interest recoverable jointly, severally and personally from defendants or against schedule properties.

Canara Bank versus Sri. S C Ravikumar Prop of Dodmane Poultry… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 25^th Day of September, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.734/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Having its head office at No.112, J C Road, Bangalore-560002, And one of its Branch Offices Called as Srinivasapura Branch, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District – 563130 Rep. by its Chief Manager Sri. Navin Chand Sahu

¶7

… APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. S.C. Ravikumar S/o. Sri. Chowdappa Aged about 56 years Proprietor of M/s. Dodmane Poultry Farm R/at. Shettihalli Village, Kolar District-563135

¶10

Sri. S. C. Narayanamurthy S/o. Sri. Chowdappa Aged about 58 years R/at. Shettihalli Village, Nambihalli Post, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District-563135 ...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for: Applicant : Sri. K. Aswathanarayana Defendants : Exparte

OA. No.734/2024

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.5,81,90,053.31 (Rupees Five Crore Eighty One Lakh Ninety Thousand Fifty Three and Thirty One Paise only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶16

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed the following credit facilities:

¶17

Term loan of Rs.4,40,00,000/- for establishing a contract poultry breeding unit

¶18

Working Capital Term loan of Rs.30,00,000/- to provide liquidity support to the firm

¶19

Agricultural Term loan of Rs.60,00,000/- for establishment of 120 KWP Solar Roof Top Grid on the poultry shed for captive consumption

¶20

Additional Working capital term loan of Rs.100 lakhs under Guaranteed Emergence Credit Line 1.0 Extension under GECL scheme for commercial operation and to meet the recurring expenses.

¶21

OA. No.734/2024

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶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, the defendants entered appearance and filed Vakalath. However, no written statement seen filed. Hence, the defendants placed exparte on 01.07.2025.

¶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 A1 to A38 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶28

OA. No.734/2024

¶29

¶30

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.

¶31

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶32

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

¶35

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

¶36

proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶37

OA. No.734/2024

¶38

¶39

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the

¶40

issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶41

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities was availed for business 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 10.00% (simple).

¶42

In the result, OA.No.734/2024 stands allowed,

¶43

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶44

of Rs.5,81,90,053.31 (Rupees Five Crore Eighty One Lakh Ninety

¶45

Thousand Fifty Three and Thirty One Paise only) with further interest of 10.00% 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

¶46

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

OA. No.734/2024

Certificate.

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

¶51

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants

¶52

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

¶53

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶57

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

¶58

with this Final Order.

¶59

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶60

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

¶61

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶62

[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 September 2025].

¶63

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA. No.734/2024

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶68

AW-1: Sri. Viaks Jain, Chief Manager of the applicant bank.

¶69

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶70

Annexure	Particulars	Date
	Loan application submitted by Sri.	31.03.2018
A1	S C Ravikumar and Sri. S C Narayanamurthy – defendant Nos.1 and 2 for Term loan of Rs.440 lakhs
A2	Sanction memorandum issued by the circle office of the applicant	07.07.2018
A3	Memorandum of Agreement for Agricultural loans executed by the defendant No.1 Sri. S C Ravikumar Prop of M/s. Dodmane Poultry Farm	24.07.2018
A4	Common Hypothecation Agreement executed by the defendant No.1 Sri. S.C. Ravikumar, Prop. of M/s. Domane PoultryFarm,	24.07.2018
A5 & A6	Guarantee Covering letter and Guarantee Agreement executed by defendant No.2 – Sri. S C Narayana Murthy	24.07.2018
A7	Simple Mortgage Deed for Agriculture Advance executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 Sri. S.C. Ravikumar and Sri. S.C. Narayanamurthy in favour of the applicant bank	10.07.2018
A8	Loan application for agricultural credit-short Term/Term loan submitted by the defendants in favour of the applicant for GECL loan of Rs.30,00,000/-	14.07.2018

¶71

OA. No.734/2024

¶72

¶73

A9	Sanction memorandum issued by the applicant in favour of the defendants	27.07.2020
A10	Supplemental Common Hypothecation Agreement executed by defendant Noo.1 – Sri. S.C. Ravikumar – Prop of M/s. Dodmane Poultry Farm, in favour of the applicant	04.08.2020
A11 & A12	Loan applications submitted by the defendants in favour of the applicant	29.01.2020 & 17.02.2020
A13	Sanction memo issued by the applicant in favour of the defendants granting Term loan of Rs.60,00,000/-	27.07.2020
A14	Supplemental Common Hypothecation Agreement by defendant No.1	03.08.2020
A15 & A16	Guarantee Covering letter and Guarantee Agreement executed by the defendant No.2	03.08.2020
A17	Supplemental Simple Mortgage Deed executed by Defendant Nos.1 and 2	30.07.2020
A18	Deed of Rectification of the Mortgage Deed executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2	04.08.2020
A19 & A20	Loan application for Agricultural credit-Short Term/Term loan submitted bythe defendant No.1	02.02.2022 & 02.02.2022
A21	Sanction memorandum issued by the applicant in favour of the defendants	15.02.2022
A22	Supplemental Common Hypothecation Agreement by defendant No.1	15.02.2022
A23 & A24	Guarantee Covering Letter and Guarantee Agreement executed by Defendant No.2 – Sri. S C Narayana Murthy	15.02.2022

¶74

9 OA. No.734/2024

¶75

A25	Supplemental Simple Mortgage Deed executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2	10.02.2022
A26	Supplemental Simple Mortgage Deed executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2	10.02.2022
A27 to A30	Legal notices issued to the defendants	18.10.2023
A31 to A33	Postal Registration Receipts	18.10.2023
A34	Postal Track Consignment Report	23.10.2023
A35	Certified statement of account in respect of Poultry/Duck Rearing	14.12.2023/ 14.02.2024
A36	Certified statement of account in respect of Guaranteed Emergence Cred loan	14.12.2023/ 14.02.2024
A37	Certified statement of account in respect of Agriculture Term loan	14.12.2023/ 14.02.2024
A38	Certified statement of account in respect of GECL	14.12.2023/ 14.02.2024
A39	Consolidated statement	--

¶76

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Sri. S C Ravikumar Prop of Dodmane Poultry Farm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri. S C Ravikumar Prop of Dodmane Poultry Farm

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 versus Sukumar Mohan

State Bank of India versus Rahul

Canara Bank versus Sgr Infratech Solution

Canara Bank versus Santhosh Kumar H M

Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank) versus Bairaiah Since Dead by His Lrs and Others

Canara Bank versus Devegowda Eregowda