Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Dharamanna

DRT31 Dec 2025TA/2/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's application for a recovery certificate. Finding the defendants' default unrebutted due to ex parte proceedings, the Tribunal ordered recovery of the principal plus interest at 6% p.a., directing sale of scheduled property if insufficient.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for sum of Rs. 23,47,434/- with interest at 6% p.a. from filing till realization, recoverable against defendants jointly, severally & personally and schedule property.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Dharamanna — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II,

¶2

BENGALURU

¶3

Dated this 31^st Day of December, 2025

¶4

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶5

TA.No.2/2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

The Karnataka Grameena Bank, Branch at Turavihal Branch, Sindhanur Taluk, Raichur District, Karnataka State.

¶8

…APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Sri Dharamanna, S/o Eranna, Residing at Hogarnal Village, Sindhanur Taluk, Raichur District, Karnataka State- 584132.

¶11

Smt. Mallamma, W/o Hanumaraddeppa, Residing at Gudihal village, Sindhanur Taluk, Raichur District, Karnataka State- 584132.

¶12

...DEFENDANTS

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

Applicant Defendants

: Rohith Ravikumar

: Exparte

FINAL ORDER

The present application was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Bengaluru on 29.12.2023 under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 to recover a sum of Rs. 23,47,434/(Rupees Twenty-Three Lakh Forty-Seven Thousand Four Hundred Thirty-

¶19

TA No. 2/2024

¶20

¶21

Four Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the application till realization from the defendants. Subsequently, the application was transferred from Debts Recovery Tribunal- I to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No. 02/2024.

¶22

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed AHL loan of Rs. 3,25,000.00 (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty-Five Thousand Only) for the purpose of Horticulture of pomegranate.

¶23

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with registered simple mortgage deed and letter of revival.

¶24

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

¶25

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this TA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

¶26

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 23.08.2024.

¶27

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the TA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-14 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶28

TA No. 2/2024

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶32

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

¶33

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained ex parte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidence put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove the availment of credit facilities as stated in the TA, 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 as the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶36

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this Tribunal find

¶37

both these issues in favour of applicant and hence this Tribunal is of the view that TA is liable to be allowed.

¶38

TA No. 2/2024

¶39

¶40

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶41

availed for Agriculture purpose and also that the TA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view of the TA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

¶42

In the result, TA.No.02/2024, stands allowed, i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 23,47,434/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Four Only) with further interest @ 6.00% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing TA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally & personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the TA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the TA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

TA No. 2/2024

¶48

¶49

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶50

v) Interim application pending, if any, are disposed of with this

¶51

Final Order.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

Rules, 1993.

¶55

(Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31^st day of December, 2025)

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

(T. RAJESH)

¶58

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶59

ANNEXURES

¶60

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶61

AW-1: T. Kariyappa, Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶62

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶63

Exhibit	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	Loan sanction dated 13.03.2008.
A2	Memorandum of agreement dated 14.05.2008.
A3	Registered simple mortgage deed dated 11.04.2008.
A4	Letter of Revival dated 11.03.2011.
A5	Letter of Revival dated20.08.2013.
A6	Letter of Revival dated 01.08.2016.
A7	Letter of Revival dated 01.08.2016.
A8	Letter of Revival dated 01.03.2019.
A9	Letter of Revival dated 01.03.2019.
A10	Acknowledgement of security dated 01.03.2019.
A11	Letter of Revival dated 05.07.2011.
A12	Letter of Revival dated 05.07.2021.
A13	Certified Statement of account.
A14	Legal notice dated 15.08.2023.

¶64

TA No. 2/2024

¶65

¶66

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

¶67

-Nil -

¶68

-Nil -

¶69

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Dharamanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Dharamanna

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