Allowed

Canara Bank v. Srikanth Ramappa Baloji

DRT13 Jan 2026OA/1135/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Canara Bank for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against joint and several defendants. The claim for agricultural loans was uncontested due to ex parte proceedings. The recovery certificate was issued with interest reduced to 6% per annum simple.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 24,61,676/- plus interest at 6% p.a. (simple) from filing date, executable against schedule properties and personal assets.

Canara Bank versus Srikanth Ramappa Baloji — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 13^th Day of January, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1135/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Raibagh Branch Sankalp Building, Belgaum Dist. Ankalli Road

¶7

Through its Chief Manager Mr. Sivakumar A …APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Srikanth Ramappa Baloji S/o. Ramappa Baloji

¶10

Aged major

¶11

Sri. Jayaveer Srikanth Baloji S/o. Srikanth Ramappa Baloji Aged major

¶12

Mahdev Maruthi Tigadi S/o. Maruthi Tigadi Aged major

¶13

Sri. Babu A Ninganure S/o. Annappa Ninganure Aged major

¶14

Smt. Champavathi Srikanth Baloji W/o. Srikanth Baloji Aged major

¶15

All residing at: Suttatti Village, Taluk – Raibagh Dist. Belagavi, Karnataka – 591 317 ...DEFENDANTS

¶16

OA-1135/2023

¶17

¶18

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶19

Applicant : S B Srikanth Defendants : Ex parte

¶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 for issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 24,61,676/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Six Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶22

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants are availed the following credit facilities:

¶23

Agricultural loan of Rs. 12,35,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand Only) for the purpose of pipe line for agriculture purpose.

¶24

Agricultural loan of Rs. 2,60,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand Only) for irrigation purpose.

¶25

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed the necessary loan document along with simple mortgage deed.

¶26

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 accounts as NPA.

¶27

OA-1135/2023

¶28

¶29

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.

¶30

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 08.07.2024.

¶31

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-13 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶32

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.

¶33

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶34

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

¶35

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶36

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶37

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 evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are

¶38

sufficient to prove availment of credit facilities as stated in the OA, creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the

¶39

OA-1135/2023

¶40

¶41

accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount

¶42

due are also proved by the above document. The claim of the

¶43

applicant is well within the limitation.

¶44

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal

¶45

find both these issues are in favour of applicant and hence, this

¶46

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

¶47

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶48

availed for Agricultural purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal is the view

¶49

that the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

¶50

In the result, OA.No.1135/2023 stands allowed,

¶51

The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs.

¶52

24,61,676/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Six

¶53

Hundred and Seventy Six Only) with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally and personally, after giving credit to all

¶54

the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA

¶55

and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule properties. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule

¶56

to the recovery certificate.

¶57

OA-1135/2023

¶58

¶59

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

¶60

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants

¶61

jointly, severally and personally and their assets are liable for all such

¶62

amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶63

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶64

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

¶65

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

¶66

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶67

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

¶68

terms of this final order.

¶69

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶70

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

¶71

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶72

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in

¶73

the Open Court, this the 13^th Day of January, 2026].

¶74

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Sd/-

OA-1135/2023

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶80

AW-1 Gajanana Kuvi, Shankar Kuvi, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶81

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶82

Exhibit	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	Copy of simple mortgage deed dt. 08.03.2013
A2	Copy of availed financial facility for a sum of Rs. 12,35,000/- 08.03.2013
A3	Copy of sanction memorandum dt. 25.03.2013
A4	Copy of memorandum of agreement for agriculture loans dt. 25.03.2013
A5	Copy of deed of guarantee agricultural advances for dt. 25.03.2013
A6	Copy of financial facility for crop and agricultural term loan and applied for loan amount 06.05.2016
A7	Copy of sanction memorandum dt. 07.05.2016
A8	Copy of memorandum for agricultural loans dt. 10.05.2016
A9	Copy of deed of guarantee for agricultural advances dt. 10.05.2016
A10	Copy of legal notice dt. 22.09.2022
A11	Statement of account 05088010031878
A12	Statement of account 05088210001474
A13	Letter of revival dt. 21.01.2022

¶83

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶84

-Nil -

¶85

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶86

-Nil -

¶87

Sd/-

¶88

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Srikanth Ramappa Baloji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Srikanth Ramappa Baloji

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

Uco Bank versus M/S Laxmi Sweet and Dairy

Hdfc Bank versus Rahul Dubey

State Bank of India versus Smt Baby Roy Prop Of Ms Divya Trading Co(Proprietorship Firm)

Punjab National Bank versus Sri Santosh Kumar Prasad Gupta and Anr.

Abhijay Gupta versus Icici Bank Limited

Arkey Enterprise and Ors. versus Hdfc Bank