Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Iramma Tukaram Patil

DRT24 Jul 2026OA/1312/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by a bank against a borrower and a guarantor for the issuance of a Recovery Certificate. Finding the evidence uncontroverted, the Tribunal directed recovery of the principal amount along with future interest at 6% p.a. from specified dates via sale of mortgaged properties and other assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued allowing the Applicant to recover Rs. 31,19,526/- with future interest at 6% p.a. from the Defendants via proceedings against schedule and other properties.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Iramma Tukaram Patil — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of July, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1312/2025

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Karnataka Grameena Bank, Udchan Branch, Afzalpur Taluk, Kalaburagi District -585217, Represented by: Its Branch Manager,

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Smt. Iramma Tukaram Patil, W/o. Tukaram Patil,

¶10

Sri. Siddanagouda Sahebagouda Patil, S/o. Sahebagouda Patil,

¶11

All residing at Bhosga Village, Afzalpur Taluk, Kalaburagi District -585301.

¶12

...DEFENDANTS

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : Bapu Vishnu Defendants : Ex parte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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. 31,19,526/- (Rupees thirty-one

¶17

lakh nineteen thousand five hundred and twenty-six only) with further

¶18

OA 1312/2025

¶19

¶20

interest thereon and cost from the Defendants.

¶21

It is the case of the Applicant that Defendant No. 1, being the borrower, initially availed an Agricultural Term Loan (ATL) of Rs. 3,85,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Eighty-Five Thousand Only) for agricultural purposes. Defendant No. 2 stood as guarantor for the said credit facility. Thereafter, Defendant No. 1 also availed a Kisan Credit Card (KCC) Loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) for agricultural purposes.

¶22

It is also the case of the Applicant that, in view of the above loan, the Defendants executed necessary loan documents in favour of the Applicant bank to secure the loan and also had created mortgage and hypothecation over the schedule properties.

¶23

It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendants, despite availing the credit facility, after agreeing with the Terms and Conditions for the loan, failed in complying with the same, resulting in defaults and consequentially turning the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

¶24

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.

¶25

Despite service of summons, Defendants failed to enter appearance. Accordingly, they were called absent and were set ex parte on 20.01.2026.

¶26

OA 1312/2025

¶27

¶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-1 to A21, 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: i) Whether the applicant succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the Defendants?

¶31

ii) If so, to what extent?

¶32

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶33

The case put forth by the Applicant in the Application remains unrebutted. The evidence tendered by the Applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidence put forth by the Applicant is found admissible and are sufficient to prove the averments made in the OA, and the defaults committed by the Defendants in repaying the loan amount due. The liability of the Defendants and the loan amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the Applicant is well within the limitation.

¶34

Hence in view of the above findings this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the OA is liable to be allowed.

¶35

Taking into consideration the fact that the loan is availed for

¶36

OA 1312/2025

¶37

¶38

agricultural purposes and also the fact that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 6.00% (simple). The prayer for interest with monthly rests and for penal interest for the future period is hereby declined.

¶39

In the result, OA.No.1312/2025, is allowed,

¶40

i) The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 31,19,526/- (Rupees thirty-one lakh nineteen thousand five hundred and twenty-six only) with pendente lite and future interest of 6.00% p.a. (simple) from 01.01.2025 till the realization, from the both Defendants in respect of the Agricultural Term Loan, and from Defendant No. 1 in respect of the Kisan Credit Card Loan, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA if any, and allow the same to be recovered by proceedings against schedule properties. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶41

ii) In the event that the sale proceeds of the Schedule

¶42

properties are insufficient to satisfy the loan amount due, the Applicant Bank shall be at liberty to recover the balance amount by proceeding

¶43

against the other assets of Defendant No. 1 in respect of both the Agricultural Term Loan and the Kisan Credit Card Loan, and against the other assets of Defendant No. 2 only in respect of the Agricultural Term

¶44

OA 1312/2025

¶45

¶46

Loan, in accordance with their respective liabilities.

¶47

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings for

¶48

which Applicant to file cost memo within seven days from the date of

¶49

receipt of the order.

¶50

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

¶51

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶52

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

¶53

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶54

terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶55

(Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24^th day of July, 2026).

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

(T. RAJESH)

¶58

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶59

ANNEXURES

¶60

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶61

AW-1: Dhanush, Assistant Manager of Applicant Bank.

¶62

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶63

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	17.04.2006	Appraisal Memorandum cum sanction letter
A2	09.05.2006	Loan agreement
A3	09.05.2006	Guarantee agreement
A4	20.04.2006	Registered mortgage deed

¶64

OA 1312/2025

¶65

¶66

A5	05.05.2009	Letter of Revival
A6	28.04.2012	Letter of Revival
A7	21.04.2015	Letter of Revival
A8	10.04.2018	Letter of Revival
A9	02.12.2020	Letter of Revival
A10	01.12.2023	Letter of Revival
A11	24.04.2009	Loan application
A12	24.04.2009	Loan agreement
A13	29.09.2006	Registered mortgage deed
A14	24.04.2012	Letter of Revival
A15	15.04.2015	Letter of Revival
A16	10.04.2018	Letter of Revival
A17	04.11.2020	Letter of Revival
A18	04.10.2023	Letter of Revival
A19	18.02.2025	Legal Notice
A20	--	Certified statement of account
A21	--	Certified statement of account

¶67

Witness Examined for the Defendants: List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

-Nil -

-Nil -

Sd/-

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Iramma Tukaram Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Iramma Tukaram Patil

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

Kaushelendra Pratap others versus Grihum Housing Finance Limited

Ms Lakshya Textiles Agency versus Uco Bank

Ms Maxx Metal Pvt. Ltd. and Others versus Indian Overseas Bank

Gireesh Chand Garg versus Punjab National Bank

Rohit Jaiswal versus Canara Bank

Smt Alka and Another versus Canara Bank