Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Bheemaraya

DRT27 Apr 2026OA/132/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the bank for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against defendants who availed agricultural credit facilities and defaulted. Being ex-parte, the court ruled in favor of the applicant, granting recovery of the principal amount plus a reduced simple interest of 6% p.a., authorized execution against joint/several liabilities and mortgage properti

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 23,75,119.63 plus 6% simple interest p.a.; recovery recoverable jointly, severally, and personally against defendants and mortgaged property.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Bheemaraya — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of April, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.132/2025

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

The Karnataka Grameena Bank

¶7

Branch office at APMC Yard, Sindhanur, Raichur District, Rep. by its Branch Manager and Principal Officer in-charge Anita Hotkar … APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Bheemaraya S/o. Sri. Sagarappa Aged about 77 years

¶10

Sri. Sharanappa S/o. Sri. Bheemaraya Aged about 55 years

¶11

Sri. Balappa S/o. Sri. Durgappa Aged about 75 years

¶12

All are residing at: Chiratanal, Kurukunda, Sindhanur Taluk, Raichur District-584128 ...DEFENDANTS

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : Sri. Srinivasa Murthy H C Defendants : Exparte

OA. No.132/2025

:FINAL ORDER:

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.23,75,119.63 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Seventy Five Thousand One Hundred Nineteen and Sixty Three Paisa only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed Kisan Credit Card limit of Rs.10,00,000/- 30.11.2019 and ATL of Rs.5,00,000/- on 20.12.2019.

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facilities, the defendants executed necessary loan documents. Apart from the creation of security interest by way of mortgage over the Schedule property.

¶21

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 account as NPA.

¶22

OA. No.132/2025

¶23

¶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 on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 20.11.2025.

¶26

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A15 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

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.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

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

¶30

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

OA. No.132/2025

¶33

¶34

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 security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. 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.

¶35

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶36

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶37

were availed for agricultural purpose and also that 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% p.a.(simple).

¶38

OA. No.132/2025

¶39

¶40

In the result, OA.No.132/2025 stands allowed,

¶41

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶42

of Rs.23,75,119.63 (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Seventy Five

¶43

Thousand One Hundred Nineteen and Sixty Three Paisa only) with further interest of 6.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA

¶44

till the realization from the defendants, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against defendants jointly, severally and personally and also by proceeding against the schedule property. The schedule property to the OA be the schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶45

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

¶46

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants

¶47

jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶48

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶49

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

¶50

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶51

OA. No.132/2025

¶52

¶53

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

¶54

with this Final Order.

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶59

ANNEXURES

¶60

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶61

AW-1: Smt. Anita Hotkar, Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

¶62

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶63

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Exhibit Number
1	Application form cum appraisal report for KCC dated 30.11.2019	A1
2	Loan sanction conveying letter dated 30.11.2019	A2
3	Request for agriculture overdraft facilities/kisan credit card dated 30.11.2019	A3
4	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans dated 30.11.2019	A4
5	Simple mortgage deed dated 27.11.2019	A5

¶64

OA. No.132/2025

¶65

6	Letter of Revival for KCC dated 06.09.2022 executed by defendants	A6
7	Application for cum appraisal report for agricultural term loans dated 20.12.2019	A7
8	Loan sanction conveying letter dated 20.12.2019	A8
9	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans dated 20.12.2019	A9
10	Simple mortgage deed dated 18.12.2019	A10
11	Letter of Revival for ATL dated 06.09.2022	A11
12	Legal notice dated 06.08.2024 issued in respect of KCC loan	A12
13	Legal notice dated 06.08.2024 issued in respect of ATL	A13
14	Statement of account certified under Bankers’ Book of Evidence Act in respect of KCC loan	A14
15	Statement of account certified under Bankers’ Book of Evidence Act in respect of ATL loan	A15

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Bheemaraya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Bheemaraya

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