Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri Muthanna

DRT27 Apr 2026OA/1304/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed Canara Bank's original application for a recovery certificate of Rs.34,98,321.35 against three defendants, who were set ex parte. The Tribunal affirmed the bank's prima facie case regarding loan defaults and ordered recovery from the defendants jointly and severally.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of recovery certificate for Rs.34,98,321.35 with 6% p.a. interest from date of filing, recoverable jointly and severally.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of April, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1304/2022

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank Manvi Branch 1^st Floor, Basava Complex, Near Bus stand, Manvi, Raichur District-584123

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. Muthanna S/o Siddappa Amaravathi, Janekal Post, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District, Karnataka- 584123

¶9

Sri. Basanna S/o. Hampayya Amaravathi, Janekal Post, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District, Karnataka- 584123

¶10

Sri. Shivageri S/o. Siddappa Amaravathi, Janekal Post, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District, Karnataka- 584123

¶11

...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : VS Associates Defendants : Exparte

OA 1304/2022

FINAL ORDER

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 Rs.34,98,321.35 (Rupees thirty four lakh ninety eight thousand three hundred twenty one and paisa thirty five only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants No.1 and 2 as borrowers and defendant no.3 as guarantor availed the following credit facilities from the applicant bank:-

¶19

I. Agricultural Loan of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) and

¶20

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

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with deed of guarantee, mortgage deed and demand promissory note in favor of the applicant bank.

¶22

It is further contended that, the defendants despite

¶23

OA 1304/2022

¶24

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 19.11.2024.

¶28

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-3 to A-11 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶29

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.

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶31

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶32

OA 1304/2022

¶33

¶34

OA claim as against the defendant?

¶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

¶38

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.

¶39

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

¶40

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶41

are availed by defendant for Vehicle Purchase, Housing Purpose

¶42

OA 1304/2022

¶43

¶44

and Cash credit purpose, this Tribunal in view of the rate of

¶45

interest as claimed need not be reduced. However as the OA Claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate and also by applying default interest, the prayer for monthly rest and future penal interest are declined.

¶46

In the result, OA.No.1304/2022, stands allowed,

¶47

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶48

sum of Rs.34,98,321.35 (Rupees thirty four lakh ninety eight thousand three hundred twenty one and paisa thirty five only) with further interest @6% p.a. (Simple),

¶49

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

¶50

No.1 to 3 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 proceedings against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶51

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

¶52

jointly severally and personally and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶53

OA 1304/2022

¶54

¶55

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶56

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

¶57

receipt of the order.

¶58

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

¶59

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶60

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

¶61

in terms of this final order.

¶62

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶63

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

¶64

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶65

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27^th day of April, 2026].

¶66

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶67

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶68

ANNEXURES

¶69

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶70

AW-1: Ajeet Kumar, Branch Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶71

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶72

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A3	25.07.2006	Agreement for agricultural advance executed by D1 in favor of the applicant bank.
A4	25.07.2006	Deed of guarantee for agriclutural advances executed by D2 in favor of the applicant bank.

¶73

OA 1304/2022

¶74

¶75

A5	25.08.2006	Agreement for agricultural advance executed by D1 in favor of the applicant bank.
A6	25.08.2006	Deed of guarantee for agriclutural advances executed by D3 in favor of the applicant bank
A7	19.07.2006	Mortgage deed
A8	13.03.2020	Demand promissory note along with letter of time barred debts
A9	19.05.2022	Legal/Recall notice
A10		True extract of statement of accounts pertaining to the defendants loan account No.18098550002055
A11		True extract of statement of accounts pertaining to the defendants loan account No.18098380012295

¶76

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

¶77

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Sri Muthanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri Muthanna

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

Union Bank of India versus S S T Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Bank of India versus Ms Box Well Industries

Bank of Maharashtra versus Chandrashekhar Pundlik Jagtap

Bank of Baroda versus Anushka Jain Proprietor Ms Ur Choice

Canara Bank versus Mr R Markondaiah

State Bank of India versus Kavitha. N