Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. P Kumar and Another

DRT20 Aug 2026OA/1608/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DR TBII allowed the recovery certificate application. The Tribunal found the evidence uncontroverted due to the defendants appearing ex parte. It granted the claim but reduced the interest rate.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs.70,97,288/- plus future interest at 6% p.a. (simple) with a Recovery Certificate to be issued for execution against schedule and other assets.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus P Kumar and Another — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 20^th Day of August 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.1608/2025

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Karnataka Grameena Bank Begur Branch, Gundlupet Taluk, Chamrajnagara District-571109 …APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri.P. Kumar

¶9

S/o.Late Puttaswamaiah R/o.Begur Hobli, Gundlupet Taluk, Chamarajanagara District-571109.

¶10

Sri.Keerthi Kumar S/o.P.Kumar R/o.Begur Hobli, Gundlupet Taluk, Chamarajanagara District-571109. ...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : Smt.M.Anitha Defendants : Exparte

¶13

: FINAL ORDER:

¶14

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.70,97,288/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Ninety-Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty-Eight Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶15

2 OA No.1608/2025

¶16

The Defendants No.1 and 2 as borrowers availed a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty-Five Thousand Only) for the purpose of Agriculture.

¶17

The Defendants No.1 and 2 as borrowers availed a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-One Lakhs Only) for the purpose of Development of Land.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, they failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 23.03.2026.

¶22

3 OA No.1608/2025

¶23

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 A22 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶24

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.

¶25

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶26

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

¶27

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶28

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶29

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 facility 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.

¶30

4 OA No.1608/2025

¶31

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.

¶32

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was 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% p.a.(simple).

¶33

In the result, OA.No.1608/2025 stands allowed,

¶34

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs.70,97,288/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Ninety-Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty-Eight Only) along with current and future interest 6% from the date of filing the application till the date of realization, from the Defendants, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received

¶35

during the pendency of the OA if any, and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule properties. The schedule property to the OA be the schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶36

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

¶37

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants and their other assets are liable for all such amounts due in loan accounts.

¶38

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding which

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶42

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

¶43

this Final Order.

¶44

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure)

¶45

Rules, 1993.

¶46

[Dictated to the Stenographer (GS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 20^th Day of August 2026].

¶47

ANNEXURES

¶48

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶49

AW-1: Sri.Shankara Narayana.T, Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

¶50

6 OA No.1608/2025

¶51

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶52

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Exhibit Number
1.	Loan Application dated 01.08.2015	A1
2.	Loan Sanction Conveying Letter dated 01.08.2015	A2
3.	Loan Agreement dated 01.08.2015	A3
4.	Simple Mortgage Deed dated 31.07.2015	A4
5.	Loan Application form dated 25.08.2015	A5
6.	Sanction communication dated 09.12.2015	A6
7.	Loan Sanction conveying Letter dated 28.12.2015	A7
8.	Loan Agreement dated 28.12.2015	A8
9.	Demand Promissory Note dated 28.12.2015	A9
10.	Simple Mortgage Deed dated 21.12.2015	A10
11.	Acknowledgement of Liability dated 20.08.2016	A11
12.	Letter of Commitment dated 28.03.2018	A12
13.	Acknowledgement of Liability dated 27.03.2019	A13
14.	Letter of Revival dated 17.03.2022	A14
15.	Acknowledgment of Liability dated 15.12.2018	A15
16.	Letter of Revival dated 02.08.2019	A16
17.	Letter of Revival dated 04.09.2021	A17
18.	Letter of Revival dated 03.01.2024	A18
19.	Legal Notice dated 02.01.2025	A19
20.	Postal Receipt 2+2	A20
21.	Statement of Accounts in No.42009354031121	A21
22.	Statement of Accounts in No.42009326003815	A22

¶53

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. P Kumar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. P Kumar and Another

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

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank versus Sri.Heeru Somalu Lamani

Canara Bank versus Sri.Vijayakumar

Canara Bank versus Sri.Veerendra. D.M

Ms Anjani Kumar Srivastava and Others versus Mansarovar Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Mr Amit Kumar Nag and Anr. versus Axis Bank Limited

Sri Tuhin Kumar Das and Another versus Bank of India