Allowed

Canara Bank v. Dodda Nanjaiah and Another

DRT27 Aug 2026OA/1836/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by Canara Bank seeking a Recovery Certificate against two defendants for an agricultural loan default. The proceedings were concluded ex parte. The Tribunal issued the certificate for the principal amount with reduced interest of 6% for calculation purposes but directed recovery at 8% p.a. from the filing date.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 60,12,271/- with interest at 8% p.a. from date of filing proceeds from movable and immovable properties.

Canara Bank versus Dodda Nanjaiah and Another — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of August, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1836/2025

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Byrenahalli Cross Branch, Byrenahalli, Koratagere Taluk-572121, Tumakuru District. Represented by its Manager, Sri. Sanjeet Kumar.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Dodda Nanjaiah S/o Maraiah Aged about 72 years

¶10

Smt. Mahalakshmamma

¶11

W/o Dodda nanjaiah Aged about 66 years,

¶12

Both are residing at, Kashapura Village, koratagere Taluk, Tumakuru District-572121. ...DEFENDANTS

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : Shams Us Tabrez. A Defendants : Exparte

¶15

2 1836/2025

¶16

FINAL ORDER

¶17

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 against the defendants for Rs. 60,12,271/- (Rupees Sixty Lakh Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Seventy One Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants availed the following credit facilities from the applicant bank:-

¶19

I. Farm Development Loan of a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) on 31.01.2005.

¶20

II. Farm Machinery Loan of sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) on 07.03.2005.

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with Memorandum of loan Agreement for agricultural loan, Hypothecated equipment’s, Deposit of Title Deeds.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

3 1836/2025

¶25

Despite, taking out summons the defendants failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 07.04.2026.

¶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 A-1 to A-18 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

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by

¶33

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 and

¶34

hypothecation as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim

¶35

4 1836/2025

¶36

of the amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim

¶37

of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶38

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

¶39

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities was availed for agricultural purpose and also that the 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% (simple).

¶40

In the result, OA.No.1836/2025, stands allowed,

¶41

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.

¶42

60,12,271/- (Rupees Sixty lakh Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Seventy One Only) with further interest @8.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants 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 proceeding against schedule property. Schedule Properties to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶43

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly,

¶44

severally and personally and their assets are liable for the amounts due

¶45

under the loan accounts.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

Rules, 1993.

¶54

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

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶57

6 1836/2025

¶58

ANNEXURES

¶59

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶60

AW-1: Sanjeet Kumar, Branch Manager of the applicant Bank

¶61

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶62

Annexure	Date	List of Documents
A1	21.12.2004	Application cum Appraisal report for Farm development Loan executed by the 1^stand 2^nd defendants
A2	12.01.2005	Sanction Memorandum
A3	31.01.2005	Memorandum of Agreement for agricultural loan of FD Loan executed by the 1^stand 2^nddefendants
A4	07.03.2005	Memorandum of Agreement for agricultural loan of FM Loan executed by the 1^stand 2^nddefendants
A5	27.04.2005	NF-373, particulars of Hypothecated Equipment’s executed by the 1^stand 2^nddefendants
A6	07.03.2005	NF-482, Certificate of Loan Papers Obtained
A7	31.01.2005	Letter Evidencing Deposit of Title Deeds executed by the 1^stand 2^nddefendants
A8	09.01.2008	Letter of Revival executed by the 1^stand 2^nd defendants
A9	05.07.2010	Letter of Revival executed by the 1^stdefendants
A10	30.05.2013	Letter of Revival executed by the 1^stdefendants
A11	20.05.2016	Letter of Revival executed by the 1^stdefendants
A12	25.03.2019	Letter of Revival executed by the 1^stand 2^nd defendants
A13	05.01.2022	Letter of Revival executed by the 1^stdefendants
A14	19.06.2023	Letter of Revival executed by the 1^stdefendants

¶63

7 1836/2025

¶64

A15	23.04.2005	Xerox Copy of the R.C. Book in respect to the Tractor and Trailer issued by R.T.O. Tumakuru Vide Bearing Regn. No. KA.06-T-9729 and 9730
A16	30.11.2004	Legal Scrutiny Report
A17	--	Statement of Account in Farm Development Loan A/No. 1911883001083
A18		Statement of Account in Farm Development Loan A/No. 1911883001083

¶65

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil - List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil –

¶66

-Nil -

¶67

Sd/-
(T. RAJESH)
PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Dodda Nanjaiah and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Dodda Nanjaiah 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

Icici Bank Limited versus Shilpy

Bank of India versus Sh. Hardev Singh

Bank of India versus Amarjit Kaur

Santosh Kumari versus Central Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mokksh

Ms Tamanna Enterprises versus Indian Bank