Allowed

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank v. Kempanna Bhimappa Padadalli

DRT28 Jan 2026OA/1027/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by a bank to obtain a recovery certificate against two defendants. The defendants were present in absentia (ex-parte). The court reduced the interest rate to 6% p.a. considering the agricultural nature of the loan.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate for Rs. 23,93,367/- plus interest at 6% p.a. (simple) from filing date allowed; recoverable jointly/severally from defendants and schedule property.

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank versus Kempanna Bhimappa Padadalli — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 28^th Day of January, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA. No.1027/2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Karnataka Grameena Bank Naganur Branch Mudalagi Taluk, Belgaum District-591224 Rep. By its Branch Manager Mr. Wasim Akram K

¶8

… APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Sri. Kempanna Bhimappa Padadalli S/o. Bhimappa Padadalli Major by age, Residing at: Naganur Village, Mudalagi Taluk, Belgaum District-591224

¶11

Sri. Arjun Yallappa Guddennavar S/o. Yallappa Guddennavar Major by age, Residing at: Naganur village, Mudalagi Taluk, Belgaum District-591224 ...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Sri. Vijay S Defendants : Exparte

¶14

:FINAL ORDER:

¶15

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

¶16

OA. No.1027/2025

¶17

¶18

under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.23,93,367/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Ninety Three Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Seven only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed term loan facility of Rs.19,15,000/- for the purpose of establishment of Jaggery manufacturing unit under PMEGP scheme on 09.03.2020 and Crop loan facility of Rs.2,00,000/- for the purpose of raising Sugarcane crop.

¶20

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 property.

¶21

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

¶22

OA. No.1027/2025

¶23

¶24

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.

¶25

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 19.09.2025.

¶26

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A19 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

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.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

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

¶30

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶33

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

¶34

OA. No.1027/2025

¶35

¶36

admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of credit facilities

¶37

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.

¶38

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the

¶39

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

¶42

arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal

¶43

in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00%

¶44

p.a.(simple).

¶45

In the result, OA.No.1027/2025 stands allowed,

¶46

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶47

of Rs.23,93,367/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Ninety Three

¶48

Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Seven 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

¶49

OA. No.1027/2025

¶50

¶51

amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against

¶52

defendants jointly, severally and personally and also by proceeding against the schedule property. The schedule property to the OA be the schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶53

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

¶54

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.

¶55

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶56

v) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of with this Final Order.

¶57

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.

¶58

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 28^th Day of January 2026].

¶59

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶60

OA. No.1027/2025

¶61

ANNEXURES

¶62

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶63

AW-1: Sri. Khodgod Wasim Akram, Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

¶64

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶65

Annexure	Date	Particulars
A1	09.03.2020	Loan application
A2	09.03.2020	Loan sanction letter
A3	09.03.2020	Consideration receipt for Rs.2,00,000/- executed by defendant No.1
A4	16.03.2020	Consideration receipt for Rs.8,56,160/- executed by defendant No.1
A5	29.04.2020	Consideration receipt for Rs.3,00,000/- executed by defendant No.1
A6	24.06.2020	Consideration receipt for Rs.3,00,000/- executed by defendant No.1
A7	09.03.2020	Composite hypothecation agreement executed by defendant No.1
A8	09.03.2020	Guarantee agreement executed by defendant No.2
A9	10.02.2020	Simple mortgage deed executed by defendant No.1
A10	06.09.2024	Registered notice issued by the applicant bank to defendants
A11	26.09.2024	Legal notice issued by the applicant bank to the defendants
A12	-	Statement of account

¶66

OA. No.1027/2025

¶67

A13	08.08.2023	Loan application
A14	08.08.2023	Loan sanction letter
	08.08.2023	Agreement for agricultural advances
A15		executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the applicant bank
A16	08.08.2023	Guarantee agreement executed by defendant No.2
A17	05.06.2018	Declaration letter executed by defendant No.1
A18	02.08.2024	Renewal letter executed by defendant No.1
A19	26.09.2024	Legal notice issued by the applicant bank to defendants
A20	-	Statement of account

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank v. Kempanna Bhimappa Padadalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank v. Kempanna Bhimappa Padadalli

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

Punjab National Bank versus M/S First Engineer

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ram Sidhari

Icici Bank Limited versus Shaikh Ayub

Jitendra Singh versus Punjab National Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Sucha Singh

Canara Bank versus Manga Singh Aulakh