Allowed

Canara Bank v. Mallikarjuna Swamy

DRT24 Jun 2026OA/1013/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The debtor recovery tribunal applied the presentation of documentary evidence to confirm a defaulted agricultural loan claim. Upon finding the defendant's liability proved and the claim within limitation, the tribunal allowed the original application and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate at 6% p.a. interest with a right to proceed against mortgaged properties and personal assets for

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 33,43,639/- plus interest at 6% p.a. from filing date, recoverable from defendant personally and via schedule property.

Canara Bank versus Mallikarjuna Swamy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of June, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1013/2022

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank Kollegala Branch-000795 P.B.No 14,Atchams Mansion 7-4-34, Southern Extn Road Kollegala-571440, Chamrajangar District

¶6

Respresented By Its Senior Manager Sri. Somala Naik Sugali

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Mallikarjuna Swamy S/o. Late. Mallaih R/o. Palya Village,Kollegal Taluk Chamarajanagar District-571440

¶10

...DEFENDANT

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : Nandish N J Defendant : Exparte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been

¶15

filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for

¶16

OA 1013/2022

¶17

¶18

Rs.33,43,639/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Thirty Nine Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant availed an agricultural loan of Rs 5,67,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Only) for the purpose of purchase of tractor and trailer and accessories.

¶20

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.

¶21

It is further contended that, the defendant despite 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed

¶24

to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 12.8.2025.

¶25

OA 1013/2022

¶26

¶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 A-1 to A-15 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶28

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.

¶29

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶30

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶31

OA claim as against the defendant?

¶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

¶35

remains unrebutted as defendant 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 mortgage as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendant and the claim as the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant

¶36

OA 1013/2022

¶37

¶38

is well within the limitation.

¶39

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this

¶40

Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence

¶41

this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶42

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶43

are availed by defendant 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 @6% p.a. (Simple).

¶44

In the result, OA.No.1013/2022, stands allowed,

¶45

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. Rs.33,43,639/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred And Thirty Nine Only) with further interest @6% p.a. (Simple),from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendant personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of

¶46

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.

¶47

OA 1013/2022

¶48

¶49

(ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendant personally and his other assets are liable to be proceeded against

¶50

for the balance amount.

¶51

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶52

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

¶53

receipt of the order.

¶54

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

¶55

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶56

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

¶57

in terms of this final order.

¶58

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶59

in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶60

[Dictated to the Stenographer (ms), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 24^th day of June, 2026].

¶61

Sd/(T. RAJESH)

¶62

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶63

ANNEXURES

¶64

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶65

AW-1: Govindaraju N, Senior Manager, of the Applicant Bank.

¶66

OA 1013/2022

¶67

¶68

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶69

Exhibit Nos.	Particulars of Documents
A1	Application for agricultural credit dt 29.10.2005
A2	Appraisal report for purchase of tractor and trailer dt 29.10.2005
A3	Sanction communication dt 29.10.2005 executed by defendant
A4	Memorandum of agreement for agriculture loan dt 29.10.2005 executed by defendant
A5 & A6	Particular in vechile and machinery dt 06.11.2005 executed by defendant
A7	Simple mortgage Deed dt 29.10.2005 registered on 03.11.2005 exeuted by defendant in favour of applicant bank. The document is registered as No.KOG-1-00924-2005-06 in CD.No.KONDD6 in the office of sub-register,Kollegala
A8 &	Letter of revival on 12.01.2008, 10.01.2011, 27.12.2013.
A12	12.12.2016 and 16.04.2019 executed by defendant
A13	Notice dated 10.07.2019
A14	Legal notice dated 19.09.2021, postal receipt and returned cover
A15	Certified statement of account along certificate
Witness	Examined for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶70

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶71

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Mallikarjuna Swamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Mallikarjuna Swamy

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

State Bank of India versus Haja Majmudeen Abdul Razak

Union Bank of India versus M/s Pallavi Pharma

Ms Joysri Enterprises versus Indian Bank

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Haji Mohammad Sultan Sofi

Ellaquai Dehati Bank versus Ghulam Rasool Mir

Keshav Prasad Choubey versus Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Limited