Allowed

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) v. M Vasanthi

DRT31 Jul 2026OA/1163/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed under the RDB Act for recovery of dues. The bank proved loan availment, security creation, and default via uncontroverted documents. The court granted recovery of principal plus 6% simple interest and a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 77,87,125.19 with 6% p.a. simple interest. Defendants liable jointly, severally, and personally. Balance recoverable from assets if sale proceeds insufficient.

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) versus M Vasanthi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 31^st Day of July, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA NO.1163/2023

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank Branch office at: 1^st floor, Durga Bhavan Building, BH road, Bhadravathi – 577 301 Shimoga District

¶6

Represented by Chief Manager Mr. Avinash Chandra Hegde

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Smt. M Vasanthi W/o. M B Ramakrishna R/at: No. 57, behind govt junior college, Madhavanagara, Old Town, Bhadravathi

¶10

Sri. Krishne gowda S/o. Ramegowda R/at: Hutha Colony Bhadravathi

¶11

Sri. Rama Krishna M B S/o. Byrappa R/at: No. 57, behind govt junior college, Madhavanagara, Old Town,

¶12

Bhadravathi …DEFENDANTS

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : Sharath Kumar Shetty Defendants : Ex parte

OA-1163/2023

FINAL ORDER:

The Original Application (OA) has been filed under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 for recovery of sum of 77,87,125.19/- (Rupees Seventy-Seven Lakhs Eighty-Seven Thousand One Hundred and Twenty-Five and Paisa Nineteen Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶19

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

¶20

Credit facility of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) for the purpose to purchase of agricultural land.

¶21

Credit facility of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) for the purpose of land development/maintenance of agricultural product.

¶22

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.

¶23

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities,

¶24

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.

¶25

OA-1163/2023

¶26

¶27

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.

¶28

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to

¶29

appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 18.07.2025.

¶30

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof

¶31

Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-19 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

¶38

OA-1163/2023

¶39

¶40

are sufficient to prove availment of credit facilities as stated in the OA, creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above document. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

In the result, OA.No.1163/2023 stands allowed,

¶47

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of

¶48

Rs. 77,87,125.19/- (Rupees Seventy-Seven Lakhs Eighty-Seven Thousand One Hundred and Twenty-Five and Paisa Nineteen 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 the amount recovered and

¶49

OA-1163/2023

¶50

¶51

received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be

¶52

recovered by proceeding against the schedule properties. Properties

¶53

schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶54

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

¶55

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their assets are liable for balance amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶56

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶60

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

¶61

terms of this final order.

¶62

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶63

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

¶64

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶65

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 31^st Day of July, 2026].

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA-1163/2023

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶72

AW-1: Gobi S, S/o. Subramani, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶73

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶74

Exhibit	DOCUMENTS
Nos
A1	Loan application in respect to loan account no. 19058540004254
A2	Agreement for agricultural advances
A3	Deed of guarantee for agricultural advances
A4	Payment receipt
A5	Annexure-2
A6	Letter of time barred debts
A7	Demand promissory note
A8	Simple mortgage deed
A9	Legal notice dated 01.07.2021
A10	Statement of account in loan account no. 19058540004254
A11	Certificate U/s. 2A of banker’s book evidence act
A12	Application for agricultural credit
A13	Agreement for agricultural advances
A14	Deed of guarantee for agricultural advances
A15	Payment receipts
A16	Letter for term barred debts

¶75

OA-1163/2023

¶76

¶77

A17	Demand promissory note
A18	Statement of account in loan account no. 19058540005080
A19	Certificate U/s. 2A of banker’s book evidence act

¶78

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil - List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil –

¶79

Sd/-

¶80

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) v. M Vasanthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank) v. M Vasanthi

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

Canara Bank versus Ms Kalka Packaging

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Fine Line Retails Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Ramappa G Khanagoudar

Mrs Azaz Fatima versus Hero Housing Finance Limited

M/s Pannalal Associates versus Anand Rathi Global Finance Limited

Ranjana Sharma versus Icici Bank Limited