Allowed

Canara Bank v. T Venkateshappa

DRT27 Aug 2026OA/1269/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Canara Bank under Section 19 of the RDB Act for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. Being ex-parte, the defendant's claim was unrebutted. The Tribunal issued a certificate for recovery of the principal amount plus reduced interest at 6%. Relief

What did the court decide?

The applicant is allowed to recover Rs. 30,80,712.99 with interest at 6% p.a. from defendants jointly, severally and personally via recovery certificate against schedule property.

Canara Bank versus T Venkateshappa — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of August, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1269/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Chikkathirupathi Branch, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, Represented by its Chief Manager, Mrs. Nehaja. …APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Mr. T. Venkateshappa S/o Late Mr. Thippaiah, Aged about 52 years, Residing at Arehalli Village, Anugondanahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District-560067.

¶9

Mr. Sampangaiamma Wife of Late Mr. Thippaiah, Aged about 65 years, Residing at Arehalli Village, Anugondanahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District-560067.

¶10

Mr. T. Govindappa Aged about 44 years, S/o LateMr. Thippaiah, Residing at Arehalli Village, Anugondanahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk,

¶11

2 1269/2023

¶12

Bangalore Rural District-560067.

¶13

Mr. T. Sampangiramaiah, S/o Late Thippaiah, Aged about 39 years, Residing at Arehalli Village, Anugondanahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District-560067.

¶14

Mr. Uday Kumar S/o Late Thippaiah Aged about 26 years, Residing at Arehalli Village, Anugondanahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District-560067.

¶15

Mr. Sunil Kumar S/o Late Mr. T Venkateshappa Aged about 21 years, Residing at Arehalli Village, Anugondanahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District-560067. ...DEFENDANTS

¶16

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶17

Applicant : FX & Co., Defendants : Exparte

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

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 against the defendants for Rs. 30,80,712.99/-

¶20

3 1269/2023

¶21

(Rupees Thirty Lakh Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred Twelve and Paise Ninety Nine 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 availed the Kisan Sericultural Development of Loan credit facility of Rs. 11,00,000/- from the applicant bank.

¶23

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with Sanction Memorandum, Registered Simple Mortgage, Letter of Revival.

¶24

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, the defendants failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶25

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.

¶26

Despite, taking out summons the defendants failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 18.03.2026.

¶27

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-7 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶28

4 1269/2023

¶29

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.

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶31

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim

¶32

as against the defendants?

¶33

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

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 of the amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

5 1269/2023

¶39

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was

¶40

availed for agricultural purpose and also that the 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 of 6.00% (simple).

¶41

In the result, OA.No.1269/2023, stands allowed,

¶42

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 30,80,712.99/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred Twelve and Paise Ninety Nine 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 received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against schedule property. Schedule Properties to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶43

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 assets are liable for the amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶44

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶45

6 1269/2023

¶46

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

¶47

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶48

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

¶49

of this final order.

¶50

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms

¶51

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

¶52

Rules, 1993.

¶53

[Dictated to the Stenographer (DV), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27^th Day of August, 2026].

¶54

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶55

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶56

ANNEXURES

¶57

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶58

AW-1: Ms. Sonal Rashmi Ekka, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank

¶59

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶60

Annexure	Date	List of Documents
A1	26.03.2014	Loan Application
A2	26.03.2014	Sanction Letter
A3	26.03.2014	The Memorandum of Agreement for Agricultural loan
A4	22.03.2014	Registered Simple Mortgage Deed
A5	04.01.2023	The Revival Letter
A6	21.04.2023	Legal Notice

¶61

7 1269/2023

¶62

A7 -- Statement of Account under loan A/c No. 0823866010799

¶63

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

¶64

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. T Venkateshappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. T Venkateshappa

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Shilpy

Bank of India versus Sh. Hardev Singh

Bank of India versus Amarjit Kaur

Santosh Kumari versus Central Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mokksh

Ms Tamanna Enterprises versus Indian Bank