Allowed

Canara Bank v. Rama Tammani

DRT30 Jan 2026OA/143/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's original application for a recovery certificate of Rs. 38,50,450. Since defendants appeared ex parte, the bank's evidence was accepted. The court reduced the claimed interest rate from the agreed rate to 6% p.a. (Simple).

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 38,50,450 with 6% p.a. simple interest from filing date; recovery from Defendant No.2 personally and legal heirs to the extent of inherited estate.

Canara Bank versus Rama Tammani — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 30^th Day of January, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.143/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Ankali Branch Mayur Chitra Mandir Ankali, Chikkodi Taluk, Belgaum District, Karnataka- 591213

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Rama Tammani Nipanale Since deceased through his legal heirs

¶10

(a) Mayavva Ramu Tammani (Wife)

¶11

(b) Basavant Ramyu Nipanale (Son) Bastawad, Raibag Taluk, Belgaum District, Karnataka- 591317

¶12

Mr. Shaaravva Namdev Wadder S/o. Namdev Wadder Bastawad, Raibag Taluk, Belgaum District, Karnataka- 591317

¶13

...DEFENDANTS

¶14

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶15

Applicant : VS Associates Defendants : Exparte

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been

¶18

¶19

OA 143-2022

¶20

filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate Rs.38,50,450/- (Rupees thirty eight lakh fifty thousand four hundred fifty only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶21

It is the case of the applicant that Late Rama Tammani Nipanale was the deceased borrower and defendant No.2 as coobligant had availed the Agricultural Loan credit facilities of Rs.5,10,000/- (Rupees five lakh ten thousand only) from the applicant bank.

¶22

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with memorandum of agreement, sanction letter and letter of revival in favor of the applicant bank.

¶23

It is further contended that, the defendants despite 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.

¶24

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate

¶25

¶26

OA 143-2022

¶27

for the amount due in the account.

¶28

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 01.04.2025.

¶29

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-5 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶30

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.

¶31

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶32

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

¶36

remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and

¶37

OA 143-2022

¶38

¶39

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, 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.

¶40

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.

¶41

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶42

are availed by defendants for agricultural purpose and also that

¶43

OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate,

¶44

this Tribunal, in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest @6% p.a.(Simple).

¶45

In the result, OA.No.143/2022, stands allowed,

¶46

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶47

sum of Rs.38,50,450/- (Rupees thirty eight lakh fifty thousand

¶48

four hundred and fifty only) with further interest @6% p.a.

OA 143-2022

(Simple),

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

¶53

No.2 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 other assets.

¶54

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

¶55

No.2 personally and his other assets are liable to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶56

(iii) Being the legal heirs of Late Rama Tammani Nipanale,

¶57

the defendants No.1(a) and (b) are liable to the extent of estate inherited by the deceased borrower.

¶58

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶59

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

¶60

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

¶61

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶62

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

¶63

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶64

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

¶65

OA 143-2022

¶66

¶67

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶68

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by

¶69

me in the Open Court, this the 30^th day of January, 2026].

¶70

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶71

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶72

ANNEXURES

¶73

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶74

AW-1: Raju Khot, Senior Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶75

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶76

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	--	Loan application and sanction letter
A2	20.08.2005	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans
A3	--	Letters of revival 02.08.2007, 04.06.2010, 02.06.2013, 05.05.2016, 04.05.2017, 09.04.2020
A4	09.07.2016	Legal notice
A5	--	True extract of statement of accounts pertaining to the defendant’s loan accounts

¶77

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

¶78

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶79

PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Rama Tammani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Rama Tammani

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

S Rajeswari versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Kishan Mitrapal Chawla Dairy

Bank of India versus Ms Narmada Pipes

Ms Khajuria Constructions and Another versus State Bank of India

Raj Kumar Baniya versus State Bank of India

Smt Firoja Begum versus Indian Bank