Allowed

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank v. Lakshmamma

DRT19 Sept 2025OA/882/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by Karnataka Gramin Bank seeking a recovery certificate against multiple defendants. The defendants appeared ex parte. The Tribunal found the claim within limitation but reduced the interest rate to 6% p.a. (simple).

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 21,23,691/- with further interest at 6% p.a. (Simple) from the date of filing till realization.

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank versus Lakshmamma — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 19^th Day of September, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.882/2024

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Karnataka Gramin Bank Hunaseghatta Branch Near Bus Stand Hunsaseghatta, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District-572202

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Smt. Lakshamamma W/o Late Boregowda

¶9

Smt. M.B. Pavitra D/o. Late Boregowda

¶10

Smt. Shwetha D/o. Late Boregowda

¶11

Sri. Dilip S/o Late Boregowda

¶12

Smt. Shruthi D/o. Late Boregowda

¶13

All are R/at: Madihalli Village, Nonavinakere Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur District-570201

...DEFENDANTS

OA 882-2024

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶18

Applicant : T.S. Mahabaleswara Defendants : Exparte

¶19

FINAL ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.21,23,691/- (Rupees twenty one lakh twenty three thousand six hundred ninety one only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶22

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants No.1 to 3 availed the following credit facilities from the applicant bank:-

¶23

I. Agricultural Term Loan of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand Only) and

¶24

II. KCCS loan limit of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh Only).

¶25

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with simple mortgage deed, hypothecation agreement and letters of revival in favor of the applicant bank.

¶26

It is further contended that, the defendants despite

¶27

¶28

OA 882-2024

¶29

availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, failed in complying the same, resulting in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶30

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.

¶31

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, the failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 05.02.2025.

¶32

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-17 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶33

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and the proof affidavit.

¶34

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶35

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶36

OA 882-2024

¶37

¶38

OA claim as against the defendants?

¶39

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶40

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶41

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶42

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 hypothecation and mortgage as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim as 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 finding arrived herein above, this Tribunal find both these issues in favor of applicant and hence this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶44

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶45

are availed by defendants No.1 & 3 for agricultural purpose and

¶46

OA 882-2024

¶47

¶48

also that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the

¶49

agreed rate, this Tribunal, in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest @6% p.a.(Simple).

¶50

In the result, OA.No.882/2024, stands allowed,

¶51

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶52

sum of Rs.21,23,691/- (Rupees twenty one lakh twenty three

¶53

thousand six hundred ninety one only) with further interest @6% p.a. (Simple),

¶54

from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants

¶55

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 proceedings against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶56

(ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendants

¶57

personally and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶58

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶59

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

¶60

OA 882-2024

¶61

¶62

receipt of the order.

¶63

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

¶64

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶65

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

¶66

in terms of this final order.

¶67

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶68

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

¶69

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶70

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by

¶71

me in the Open Court, this the 19^th day of September, 2025].

¶72

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶73

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶74

ANNEXURES

¶75

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶76

AW-1: Sri Roopesh.V, Branch Manager, of the Applicant Bank.

¶77

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶78

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	31.08.2007	Sanction Cum terms & Condition letter executed by defendants No.1 & 3
A2	31.08.2007	Hypothecation Agreement executed by defendants No.1 & 3
A3	29.08.2007	Registered simple mortgage deed executed by defendants No.1 & 3
A4	27.07.2010	Letter of commitment executed by defendants No.1 & 3

¶79

OA 882-2024

¶80

¶81

A5	29.06.2013	Letter of commitment executed by defendants No.1 & 3
A6	21.08.2019	Acknowledgement of security/ liability from mortgagers executed by defendants No.1 to 3
A7	02.08.2022	Acknowledgement of security/ liability from mortgagers executed by defendants No.1 to 3
A8	07.11.2023	Legal Notice
A9		Statement of Account extract
A10	11.08.2009	Sanction cum terms and conditions letter executed by defendants No.1 & 3
A11	11.08.2009	Hypothecation Agreement executed by defendants No.1 & 3
A12	14.08.2008	Simple mortgage deed executed by defendants
A13	04.08.2009	Simple mortgage deed executed by defendant
A14	08.08.2012	Letter of commitment executed by defendant No.1 & 3
A15	30.03.2022	Letter of revival executed by defendants 1 & 2
A16	07.11.2023	Legal Notice
A17		Statement of Account Extracts

¶82

Witness Examined for the Defendant: -Nil - List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶83

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank v. Lakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank v. Lakshmamma

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

Abbas Ca versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sachin Kumar Kaushal

Canara Bank versus M/S Avtar Bag Factory

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Hardik

Ms Habib Agro Industries Rep by Its Partners and Legal Heir of Late Sri Habib Khan and Others versus the Authorised Officer Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

Ms Habib Agro Industries Rep by Its Industries Rep by Its Partner and Legal Heirs of Late Sri Habib Khan and Others versus the Authorised Officer Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.