Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Baladandappa

DRT31 Jul 2026OA/1885/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate against an agriculturist defendant who defaulted on agricultural loans. The defendant was absent, and the Tribunal confirmed the liability and amount due based on uncontroverted documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate allowed for Rs. 52,98,649 with interest at 6% p.a. (simple) from date of filing, recoverable from defendant personally and schedule property.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Baladandappa — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 31^st Day of July, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.1885/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Karnataka Grameena Bank Masarakal Branch, Devadurga Taluk, Raichur Distrct, Karnataka State – 584111 Rep. by its Branch Manager … APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. Baladandappa Aged 49 years S/o. Sri. Ramachandrappa, agriculturist, Residing at Gutrahal village, Devadurga Taluk, Raichur District-584111 ...DEFENDANT

¶9

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶10

Applicant : Sri. N G Ravikumar Defendant : Exparte

¶11

:FINAL ORDER:

¶12

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 defendant for Rs.52,98,649/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakh Ninety Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Nine only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶13

OA. No.1885/2023

¶14

¶15

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant availed the agricultural KCC loan of Rs.25,000/- for the purpose of growing crop on 17.09.2004 and Agricultural Term Loan of Rs.4,90,000/for the purpose of purchase of Tractor, Trailer & it’s accessories on 18.05.2005.

¶16

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

¶17

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 23.07.2024.

¶20

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also

¶21

OA. No.1885/2023

¶22

¶23

produced Exhibits A1 to A23 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: i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶26

claim as against the defendant?

¶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 defendant 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

¶30

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 defendant and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶31

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the

¶32

issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is

¶33

OA. No.1885/2023

¶34

¶35

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%

¶38

p.a.(simple).

¶39

In the result, OA.No.1885/2023 stands allowed,

¶40

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.52,98,649/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakh Ninety Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Nine only) with further interest of 6.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from the defendant, 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 defendant personally and also

¶41

by proceeding against the schedule property. The schedule property to the OA be the schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶42

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

¶43

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant personally and his other assets are liable for all such amounts due

¶44

OA. No.1885/2023

¶45

¶46

under the loan accounts.

¶47

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶51

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

¶52

with this Final Order.

¶53

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶54

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

¶55

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 31^st Day of July 2026].

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA. No.1885/2023

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶62

AW-1: Sri. Sagar J, Manager of the applicant bank.

¶63

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶64

Anex No.	Description of the Documents	Date of Document
A1	Loan application with translation	17-09-2004
A2	Memorandum of Agreement for agricultural loans	17-09-2004
A3	Letter of Revival
A4	Letter of Revival	06-08-2007
A5	Letter of Revival	18-06-2010
A6	Letter of Revival	24-05-2013
A7	Letter of Revival	01-05-2016
A8	Letter of Revival	22-04-2019
A9	Statement of Accounts from 30-03-2007 to 30-06-2023 with certificate	01-04-2022
A10	Loan application	04-01-2023
A11	Sanction memorandum	02-05-2005
A12	Memorandum of Agreement for agricultural loans	18-05-2005
A13	Registered Simple mortgage deed for Rs.5,00,000/-	27-05-2005
A14	Letter of Revival	27-05-2005
A15	Letter of Revival	25-04-2008

¶65

OA. No.1885/2023

¶66

¶67

A16	Letter of Revival	08-04-2011
A17	Acknowledgement of Security /Liability from the mortgagors	10-04-2013
A18	Letter of Revival	02-04-2016
A19	Letter of Revival	02-04-2016
A20	Letter of Revival	21-03-2019
A21	Statement of Accounts from 29-03-2007 to 31-03- 2023 with certificate	03-02-2022
A21a	Consolidated statement	-------------
A22	Two legal notice with postal receipt	03-12-2022
A23	Postal acknowledgement	--------------

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Baladandappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Baladandappa

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

Canara Bank versus Ms Kalka Packaging

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Fine Line Retails Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Ramappa G Khanagoudar

Mrs Azaz Fatima versus Hero Housing Finance Limited

M/s Pannalal Associates versus Anand Rathi Global Finance Limited

Ranjana Sharma versus Icici Bank Limited