Allowed

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank v. Manjunath Ramappa Akkannavar

DRT25 Nov 2025OA/796/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for issuance of a recovery certificate against two defaulting borrowers for agricultural loans, setting interest at 6% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs.26,40,242/- with interest at 6.00% p.a. (simple) from date of filing OA till realization, recoverable against respondents and schedule properties.

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank versus Manjunath… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 25^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.796/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

KARNATAKA GRAMEENA BANK, Badalankalagi Branch, P.C.Patil Building, Badalankalagi, Belgaum Taluk & District - 591109. Represented by its Branch Manager

¶7

Sri Naveen Kumar Pydi … APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri Manjunath Ramapρα Ακκαννavar, S/o Sri Ramappa Akkannavar, Aged about 30 years, Resident of: Badalankalagi Village, Belgaum Taluk & District - 591109.

¶10

Sri Yallappa Basappa Badasad, S/o Basappa Badasad, Major by age, Residing at: Badalankalagi Village, Belgaum Taluk & District-591109 ...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : Sri. M Mohan Rao Defendants : Exparte :FINAL ORDER:

¶13

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed

¶14

OA. No.796/2022

¶15

¶16

under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.26,40,242/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Forty Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Two Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶17

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

¶18

i. Agricultural Term loan facility of Rs.1,00,000/on 10.09.2014 for the purpose of purchase she-buffalos;

¶19

ii. Agricultural loan of Rs.7,00,000/- on 27.08.2014 for raising sugarcane crop

¶20

iii. Land development loan facility of Rs.2,00,000/on 06.09.2014 for development of schedule ‘A’ land.

¶21

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 over the Schedule properties.

¶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

¶23

OA. No.796/2022

¶24

¶25

default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan account as NPA.

¶26

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.

¶27

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 27.11.2024.

¶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 A3 to A35 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

¶32

claim as against the defendants?

¶33

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

OA. No.796/2022

¶36

¶37

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶38

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 account. 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.

¶39

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.

¶40

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶41

were availed for agricultural 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).

OA. No.796/2022

In the result, OA.No.796/2022 stands allowed,

¶46

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶47

of Rs.26,40,242/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakh Forty Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Two 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 properties. The schedule properties to the OA be the schedule properties to the Recovery Certificate.

¶48

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

¶49

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶50

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶51

OA. No.796/2022

¶52

¶53

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

¶54

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶55

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

¶56

with this Final Order.

¶57

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶58

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

¶59

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶60

[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 November 2025].

¶61

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶62

ANNEXURES

¶63

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶64

AW-1: Sri. Vishwanath Katakol, Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

¶65

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶66

Annexure	Date	Particulars
A3	12.09.2005	Karnataka Vikas Grameena Amalgamation notification	Bank
A4	27.08.2014	Loan application
A5	10.09.2014	Loan Sanction letter

¶67

OA. No.796/2022

¶68

¶69

	10.09.2014	Consideration Receipt executed	by
A6		Defendant No.1 in favour of Applicant Bank for Rs.1,00,000/-.	the
	10.09.2014	Agreement for Agricultural Advan	ces
A7		for Rs.1,00,000/- executed	by
		Defendant No.1 in favour of Applicant Bank.	the
	10.09.2014	Guarantee Agreement executed	by
A8		Defendant No.2 in favour of Applicant Bank.	the
A9	16.05.2017	Acknowledgment of Debt executed Defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of Applicant Bank.	by the
A10	04.07.2020	On Demand Promissory Note along Revival Letter for Time Barred D executed by Defendant No.1 in fav of the Applicant Bank.	with ebt our
A11	04.07.2020	On Demand Promissory Note along Revival Letter for Time Barred D executed by Defendant No.2 in fav of the Applicant Bank.	with ebt our
A12	-	Statement of Account
A13	27.08.2014	Loan application
A14	27.08.2014	Loan Sanction Letter.
	27.08.2014	Agreement for Agricultural Advan	ces
A15		executed by Defendant No.1 in fav of the Applicant Bank	our
	27.08.2014	Guarantee Agreement executed	by
A16		Defendant No.2 in favour of	the
		Applicant Bank.
	02.08.2014	Simple Mortgage Deed executed	by
A17		Defendant No.1 in favour of Applicant Bank.	the
	16.05.2017	Acknowledgment of Debt executed	by
A18		Defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of Applicant Bank.	the

¶70

OA. No.796/2022

¶71

¶72

A19	15.11.2017	Application for Conversion/Rephasement Agreement executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of the Applicant Bank.
	15.11.2017	Conversion/Rephasement Agreement
A20		executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of the Applicant Bank.
A21	-	Statement of Account.
A22	27.08.2014	Loan application
A23	27.08.2014	Loan Sanction letter.
	10.09.2014	Consideration Receipt for
A24		Rs.1,00,000/- executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of the Applicant Bank.
	06.09.2014	Consideration Receipt for
A25		Rs.1,00,000/- executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of the Applicant Bank
	06.09.2014	Agreement for Agricultural Advances
A26		for Rs.2,00,000/- executed by
		Defendant No.1 in favour of the Applicant Bank.
	06.09.2014	Guarantee Agreement executed by
A27		Defendant No.2 in favour of the Applicant Bank.
	02.08.2014	Simple Mortgage Deed executed by
A28		Defendant No.1 in favour of the Applicant Bank.
	21.02.2018	Conversion/Rephasement Agreement
A29		executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of the Applicant Bank.
A30	16.05.2017	Acknowledgment of Debt executed by Defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of the Applicant Bank.
	14.05.2020	Acknowledgment of Debt executed by
A31		Defendant No.1 in favour of the Applicant Bank.

¶73

OA. No.796/2022

¶74

¶75

A32	14.05.2020	Acknowledgment of Debt executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of the Applicant Bank.
	15.04.2020	Legal Notice issued by the Applicant
A33	and 17.04.2020	Bank to the Defendants
A34	-	Served acknowledgments
A35	-	Statement of account

¶76

Sd/-

¶77

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank v. Manjunath Ramappa Akkannavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank v. Manjunath Ramappa Akkannavar

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

All orders in this case

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