Allowed

Canara Bank v. Satyappa Bagennavar

DRT30 Jan 2026OA/1019/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for a recovery certificate against borrower and guarantor defendants. The court found the applicant's evidence un-rebutted and granted reduced simple interest of 8% p.a. instead of capitalized interest, permitting recovery from property and personal assets if proceeds are insufficient.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued directing recovery of Rs.35,22,774.04 plus 8% p.a. simple interest from property and personal assets.

Canara Bank versus Satyappa Bagennavar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE

¶2

Dated this 30^th Day of January, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH Hon’ble Presiding Officer

¶4

O.A.No.1019/2023

¶5

Canara Bank, Athani Branch, Opp: to Govt. Hospital, Athani, Belgavi – 591 304. Karnataka. Represented by its Chief Manager, S.Arun Kumar. . . . Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Satyappa Bagennavar, S/o.Birappa Bagennavar, R/at Nandagoan, Athani Taluk, Belgaum District – 591 304.

¶8

Surendra Lakkappa Athani, S/o.Lakkappa Athani, R/at Nandagoan, Athani Taluk, Belgaum District – 591 304.

¶9

. . . Defendants.

¶10

Ld. Counsels on record / appeared :-

¶11

Counsel for Applicant :-Sri Prakasha Hegde.K. Counsel for Defendants :- M/s.Netra S.Balikai. : - O R D E R - :

¶12

The Application was filed by applicant before this Tribunal by the

¶13

applicant under Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debt And

¶14

¶15

OA No.1019/2023

¶16

Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and numbered as above seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for a sum of Rs.35,22,774.04 together with further interest @12.25% p.a. compounded with monthly rests from the date of OA till the date of realisation together with costs from the defendants jointly and severally and by way of sale of schedule mentioned property.

¶17

The 1^st defendant as a borrower and 2^nd defendant as a guarantor approached the erstwhile Syndicate Bank for Housing Loan of Rs.30,00,000/- and availed the said Housing Loan on 05.01.2015 upon execution necessary loan documents including Housing Loan Agreement. The 2^nd defendant stood as guarantor for the above said loan and executed Deed of Guarantee dt.05.01.2015 in favour of applicant. The 1^st defendant has mortgaged the property described in the schedule to the OA as collateral security for the above said loan and executed Simple Mortgage Deed which was registered as Doc.No.ATN-1-07197-2014-15 before the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Athani.

¶18

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶19

¶20

OA No.1019/2023

¶21

The Applicant further contends that despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount the defendants failed to regularize the said loan and hence the loan account of the defendants was classified as NPA on 01.05.2022. The applicant bank has also issued legal notice dt.02.12.2022 calling upon the defendants to repay the dues. Despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendants failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant to make the defendants pay back the amount failed forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶22

Summons was taken out and the defendants filed their written statement. The applicant adduced their evidence through AW1, who filed proof affidavit, produced documents and got marked Exhibits A1 to A8. Despite sufficient opportunities granted to defendants, no defence evidence was adduced.

¶23

In the statement of objection filed by the defendants, there is simple denial of all the contentions of the applicant. The main contention of the defendants is that the 1^st defendant mortgaged his property at Syndicate Bank and he never mortgaged the property with Canara Bank. It is further contended that the bank has charged exorbitant interest and no legal notice was served on them. It is also contended that the Syndicate Bank has got the signatures of the defendants in

¶24

¶25

OA No.1019/2023

¶26

blank formats. Hence, the defendants prayed for dismissing the OA.

¶27

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the OA claim. Hence the Applicant is found to be entitled for the OA claim as the only issue as to the proof of OA claim is answered in favour of the applicant. The defendants failed to substantiate their defence as they failed to adduce any defence evidence and failed to produce any documentary evidence.

¶28

The OA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶29

Since the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest with default interest and that the facilities are availed in respect of Housing Loan the pendent lite and future interest is awarded at simple rate that too at reduced rate of 8% p.a. (simple).

¶30

In view of the above

¶31

i. OA 1019 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶32

ii. Applicant is permitted to recover a sum of Rs.35,22,774.04 (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Twenty Two Thousands Seven Hundred Seventy Four and Paise Four only) along with pendente lite and future interest @8% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of OA till the date

¶33

¶34

OA No.1019/2023

¶35

of realization from the defendants jointly, severally and personally 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 the schedule mentioned property. The schedule to the OA to be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶36

iii. If the sale proceeds are not sufficient to clear the liability, then the Defendants personally and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against for realization of respective dues.

¶37

iv. A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the Recovery Officer to enable recovery of the dues as per the above terms.

¶38

v. Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

¶39

vi. Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶40

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶41

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30^th day of January, 2026)

¶42

Sd./- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

¶44

OA No.1019/2023

¶45

Applicant Witness:

¶46

AW1 –Mr.Frony John, Chief Manager, Applicant Bank.

¶47

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶48

Ext.A1 - Housing Loan Application dt.05.01.2015. Ext.A2 - Sanction Letter dt.12.01.2015. Ext.A3 - Housing Loan Agreement dt.05.01.2015. Ext.A4 - Guarantee Agreement dt.05.01.2015. Ext.A5 - Simple Mortgage Deed dt.06.01.2015. Ext.A6 - Certified Copy Statement of Accounts in Loan A/c.No.05367740000380. Ext.A7 - Legal Notice dt.02.12.2022. Ext.A8 - Postal Receipts.

¶49

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶50

NIL

¶51

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶52

NIL

¶53

Sd./-

¶54

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Satyappa Bagennavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Satyappa Bagennavar

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

S Rajeswari versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Kishan Mitrapal Chawla Dairy

Bank of India versus Ms Narmada Pipes

Ms Khajuria Constructions and Another versus State Bank of India

Raj Kumar Baniya versus State Bank of India

Smt Firoja Begum versus Indian Bank