Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri Parameshwarappa

DRT8 May 2026OA/1107/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed under the RDB Act. Since the defendants appeared ex parte and evidence was uncontroverted, the Court found the loan claims and defaults proved, allowing a Recovery Certificate with interest reduced to 6% p.a. due to agricultural nature.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs.43,27,157.38 plus further interest at 6% p.a. (simple) from filing date until realization against defendants jointly and severally.

Canara Bank versus Sri Parameshwarappa — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 08^th Day of May, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1107/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Bilki Branch, Kavitha Nilaya Main Road, Bilki Shikaripura Tq. Shivamogga district, Karnataka- 577428

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Parameshwarappa S/o. Basappa R/at: Sirihalli Village, Shikaripura Taluk, Shivamogga District, Karnataka- 577427

¶10

Smt. Basamma W/o. Basappa Ingalagondi R/at: Sirihalli Village, Shikaripura Taluk, Shivamogga District, Karnataka- 577427

¶11

Smt. Sharadamma D/o. Basappa R/at: Sirihalli Village, Shikaripura Taluk, Shivamogga District, Karnataka- 577427

¶12

Smt. Hanumakka D/o. Basappa

¶13

OA 1107/2024

¶14

¶15

R/at: Sirihalli Village, Shikaripura Taluk, Shivamogga District, Karnataka- 577427

¶16

...DEFENDANTS

¶17

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶18

Applicant Defendants

¶19

: VS Associates : Exparte

¶20

FINAL ORDER

¶21

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.43,27,157.38 (Rupees forty three lakh twenty seven thousand one hundred fifty seven and paisa thirty eight only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶22

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants availed

¶23

the following credit facilities from the applicant bank:-

¶24

I. Agricultural Loan of a sum of Rs.4,98,000/- (Rupees four lakh ninety eight thousand Only),

¶25

II. Agricultural loan limit of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh Only).

¶26

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan

¶27

OA 1107/2024

¶28

¶29

documents along with sanction letter, memorandum of agreement and letters of revial in favor of the applicant bank.

¶30

It is further contended that, the defendants 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.

¶31

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.

¶32

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 27.04.2026

¶33

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-20 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶34

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.

¶35

OA 1107/2024

¶36

¶37

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶38

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶39

OA claim as against the defendants?

¶40

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶41

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶42

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application 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 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 is 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

¶44

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

¶45

OA 1107/2024

¶46

¶47

12. Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶48

are availed by defendants for agricultural purpose and also that

¶49

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).

¶50

13. In the result, OA.No.1107/2024, stands allowed,

¶51

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶52

sum of Rs.43,27,157.38 (Rupees forty three lakh twenty seven

¶53

thousand one hundred fifty seven and paisa thirty eight only) with further interest @6% p.a. (Simple),

¶54

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

¶55

jointly severally and personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA

¶56

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.

¶57

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

¶58

jointly severally and personally and their other assets are liable

¶59

OA 1107/2024

¶60

¶61

to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶62

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶63

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

¶64

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

¶65

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶66

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

¶67

in terms of this final order.

¶68

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶69

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

¶70

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶71

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 8^th day of May, 2026].

¶72

(T. RAJESH)

¶73

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶74

ANNEXURES

¶75

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶76

AW-1: Rashmi.S, Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶77

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶78

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	11.03.2009	Loan application
A2	11.03.2009	Sanction letter
A3	11.03.2009	Loan application letter

¶79

OA 1107/2024

¶80

¶81

A4	11.03.2009	Sanction letter
A5	20.02.2009	Simple mortgage deed
A6	03.04.2009	Particulars of vehicles/machinery/equipment/livestock hypothecated
A7	11.03.2009	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural
A8	01.03.2012	Letters of Revival
A9	15.11.2014	Letters of Revival
A10	14.11.2017	Letters of Revival
A11	10.11.2020	Letters of Revival
A12	11.03.2009	Agreement and deed of hypothecation for Kisan Credit card
A13	19.02.2012	Letters of Revival
A14	01.02.2015	Letters of Revival
A15	20.01.2018	Letters of Revival
A16	19.01.2021	Letters of Revival
A17	19.09.2022	Letters of Revival
A18	19.09.2022	Letters of Revival
A19		Originals of account statement pertaining to the borrower’s loan account No.1864856006530
A20		Originals of account statement pertaining to the borrower’s loan account No.1864840006525

¶82

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

¶83

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Sri Parameshwarappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri Parameshwarappa

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

Sri S H Siddappa versus State Bank of India

Nishana E H versus Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri. Madhu. M.B

Md Mabud Alam Biswas versus Punjab National Bank

Uco Bank versus Smt Sampa Dutta

State Bank of India versus M/S Amravati Trading Company Acting through Its Proprietor Shri Raj Shubhakaran