Allowed

Canara Bank v. M K Nanje Gowda

DRT25 Nov 2025OA/739/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for a Recovery Certificate regarding defaulted agricultural loans. Though defendants were absent, the court found the bank's evidence sufficient, reduced interest to 6% simple, and ordered recovery jointly/severally from the borrowers' assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 23,04,392.00 with 6% simple interest recoverable from defendants jointly and severally via scheduled properties and assets.

Canara Bank versus M K Nanje Gowda — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA

¶2

AT BENGALURU

¶3

Dated this 25^th Day of November, 2025

¶4

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶5

Presiding Officer

¶6

OA.No.739/2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Canara Bank, Branch Offices called, Hassan Main Branch-1, No. 45, Near NR Circle, Malnad House, Hassan- 573 201, Hassan District, Represented by its Senior Manager, Sri. Hanumanthappa H.

¶9

…APPLICANT

¶10

AND:

¶11

Sri. M.K. Nanjegowda, S/o Late Kalegowda, Aged about 75 years.

¶12

Sri. Roopesh, S/o Sri M.K. Nanjegowda, Aged about 41 years,

¶13

Both are residing at, Makanahalli Village, Melagodu Post, Dudda Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District, PIN- 573 220. ...DEFENDANTS

¶14

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶15

Applicant : V Haridas Bhat Defendants : Exparte

OA 739/2023

FINAL ORDER

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 23,04,392.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Four Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Two Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants availed KCC loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only) and Kisan Overdraft Loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Only).

¶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 agreement and deed of hypothecation and 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, summon on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 23.04.2024.

¶26

OA 739/2023

¶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-3 to A-19 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

OA 739/2023

¶37

¶38

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

¶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.739/2023, stands allowed,

¶43

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 23,04,392.00 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Four Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Two 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

¶45

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

¶46

severally & personally and their assets are liable for amount due under the loan account.

¶47

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

¶48

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

OA 739/2023

order.

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

¶53

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶54

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

¶55

of this final order.

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

Rules, 1993.

¶59

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

¶60

Open Court, this the 25^th Day of November, 2025].

¶61

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶62

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶63

ANNEXURES

¶64

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶65

AW-1: Hanumanthappa H, Senior Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶66

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶67

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
		I- KCC loan of Rs. 3,00,000/-
A3	18.07.2013	Loan application executed by defendants
A4	18.07.2013	Loan sanction memorandum
A5	18.07.2013	Agreement and deed of hypothecation for Kisan Credit Card executed by defendants
A6	15.07.2013	Mortgage deed executed by defendants, registered in the office of the Sub-registrar, hassan as Document No. HSN-1-03409-2013-14 and stored in C.D No. HSND216

¶68

OA 739/2023

¶69

¶70

A7	31.12.2015	Letter of revival executed by defendants
A8	19.12.2018	Letter of revival executed by defendants
A9	21.04.2020	Letter requesting to convert KCC loan into term loan
A10	01.05.2021	Letter of revival executed by defendants
		II- KOD Loan of Rs. 7,00,000/-
A11	08.02.2016	Loan application submitted by 1^stdefendant
A12	08.02.2016	Loan sanction letter
A13	09.02.2016	Agreement and deed for kisan OD executed by 1^st defendant
A14	06.02.2016	Mortgage deed executed by defendants, registered in the office of the Sub-registrar, hassan as Document No. HSN-1-09763-2015-16 and stored in CD No. HSND280
A15	01.01.2019	Letter of revival executed by 1^stdefendant
A16	23.12.2022	Letter of revival executed by 1^stdefendant
A17	27.03.2023	Legal notice got issued by the applicant bank to the defendants
A18	--	Statement of account in respect of KCC Converted term loan account NO. 0531847013805
A19	--	Statement of account in respect of KOD loan account NO. 531897000464

¶71

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶72

-Nil -

¶73

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶74

-Nil -

¶75

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. M K Nanje Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M K Nanje Gowda

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

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