Allowed

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank v. Raghavendra Satyappa Bovi

DRT28 Jan 2026OA/1920/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's original application for a recovery certificate. The court adjusted the interest rate to 12% p.a. (simple) for business-related loans and authorized recovery from both the mortgaged property and the defendant's personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.40,28,690/- plus 12% p.a. simple interest, enforceable against mortgaged property and defendant's other assets; costs awarded to applicant.

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank versus Raghavendra Satyappa Bovi — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 28^th Day of January, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA. No.1920/2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Karnataka Grameena Bank Kittur Branch, Guruwarpet, Channamma Circle, Double Road, Kittur, Belgaum Distirct-591115

¶8

… APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Sri. Raghavendra Satyappa Bovi S/o. Satyappa Aged about 44 years Proprietor: M/s. Raghavendra Textiles, Having its office at: Plot No.182, KIADB Industrial Area, Kittur, Belgaum – 591115 Also at: No.546, Maruti Galli, Kasbag, Belgaum-590003

¶11

...DEFENDANT

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Sri. Vijay S Defendants : Exparte

¶14

:FINAL ORDER:

¶15

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed

¶16

under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for

¶17

OA. No.1920/2024

¶18

¶19

seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendant for Rs.40,28,690/- (Rupees Forty Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant availed Term loan facility of Rs.25,00,000/- for the purpose of establishment of Saree Manufacturing unit on 13.03.2020.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶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

OA. No.1920/2024

¶25

¶26

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 18.09.2025.

¶27

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 A13 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶28

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.

¶29

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶30

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶31

claim as against the defendant?

¶32

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶33

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶34

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 facility

¶35

as stated in the OA, creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. The

¶36

OA. No.1920/2024

¶37

¶38

liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount due are also

¶39

proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶40

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.

¶41

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was availed for business 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 12.00%

¶42

p.a.(simple).

¶43

In the result, OA.No.1920/2024 stands allowed,

¶44

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶45

of Rs.40,28,690/- (Rupees Forty Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Six

¶46

Hundred and Ninety only) with further interest of 12.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from the

¶47

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

¶48

by proceeding against the schedule property. The schedule

¶49

OA. No.1920/2024

¶50

¶51

property to the OA be the schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

under the loan account.

¶55

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶59

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

¶60

with this Final Order.

¶61

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶62

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

¶63

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 28^th Day of January 2026].

¶64

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA. No.1920/2024

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶69

AW-1: Sri. Sanjeev Kadakol, Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

¶70

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶71

Annexure	Date	Particulars
A1	18.01.2020	Loan application
A2	13.03.2020	Loan sanction letter
A3	15.06.2020	Loan sanction letter issued by the branch
A4	15.06.2020	consideration receipt for Rs.3,25,000/- executed by the defendant
	04.08.2020	Consideration receipt for
A5		Rs.20,20,000/- executed by the defendant
A6	07.09.2020	Consideration receipt for Rs.75,000/- executed by defendant in favour of the applicant bank
A7	15.06.2020	Composite hypothecation agreement executed by defendant in favour of the applicant bank
A8	16.03.2020	Simple mortgage deed executed by defendant
A9	10.06.2023	Letter of revival executed by defendant in favour of the applicant bank
A10	15.04.2023	Registered notice issued by the applicant bank

¶72

OA. No.1920/2024

¶73

A11	15.11.2023	Registered notice issued by the applicant bank to the defendant
A12	13.10.2023	Legal notice issued by the applicant bank to the defendant
A13	-	Statement of account

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank v. Raghavendra Satyappa Bovi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank v. Raghavendra Satyappa Bovi

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

Punjab National Bank versus M/S First Engineer

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ram Sidhari

Icici Bank Limited versus Shaikh Ayub

Jitendra Singh versus Punjab National Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Sucha Singh

Canara Bank versus Manga Singh Aulakh