Allowed

Canara Bank v. Tulasi Prasad K

DRT11 Sept 2026OA/1967/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application under Section 19 of the RDB Act, the bank sought a recovery certificate against borrowers who defaulted on a housing loan. The defendants appeared ex parte. The tribunal found the loan documents and default uncontroverted. It allowed the application, granting a recovery certificate for the principal amount plus interest reduced to 8% p.a. simple, enforceable against joint and several liability, personal assets, and the schedule property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 51,27,718/- plus interest at 8% p.a. (simple) from date of filing till realization, enforceable against joint, several, and personal liability of defendants, including schedule property.

Canara Bank versus Tulasi Prasad K — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 11^th Day of September, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.1967/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank HSR Layout Branch “Avani Arcade” No.L-1135 Ground Floor, 17^th Cross, 80ft Road, Sector-7, H S R Layout, Bangalore-560102 By its Senior Manager

¶7

… APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Tulasi Prasad K S/o. Sri. Krishnappa S H Aged about 46 years

¶10

Smt. Chaitra N W/o. Sri. Tulasi Prasad K Aged about 38 years

¶11

Both are residing at: GF-3, RAJ Residency 368/A, Chandrashekar Road, BEML Layout, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bangalore – 560098

¶12

...DEFENDANTS

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : Sri. Ganesh M R Defendants : Exparte

OA. No.1967/2024

:FINAL ORDER:

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.51,27,718/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighteen only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed housing loan of Rs.51,00,000/- on 15.06.2016 for the purpose of purchase of flat.

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facility, the defendants executed necessary loan documents.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

OA. No.1967/2024

¶24

¶25

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 09.09.2026.

¶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 A1 to A12 and got the same marked in evidence. 8. 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.

¶27

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶28

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

¶29

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶30

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶31

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶32

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

¶33

OA. No.1967/2024

¶34

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was availed for vehicle purchase 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 8.00% p.a.(simple).

¶38

In the result, OA.No.1967/2024 stands allowed,

¶39

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶40

of Rs.51,27,718/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand

¶41

Seven Hundred and Eighteen only) with further interest of 8.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from the

¶42

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 defendants jointly, severally

¶43

OA. No.1967/2024

¶44

¶45

and personally and also by proceeding against the schedule

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶50

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

¶51

receipt of the order.

¶52

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

¶53

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶54

v) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of with this Final Order.

¶55

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶56

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

¶57

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶58

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 11^th Day of September 2026].

¶59

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA. No.1967/2024

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶64

AW-1: Sri. Rahul Raj, Assistant Manager of the applicant bank.

¶65

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶66

Sl. No.	Date	Description of Documents	Exhibit Number
1		Loan application form	A1
2	04.06.2016	Loan sanction memorandum	A2
3	15.06.2016	Specimen signature card	A3
4	15.06.2016	Housing loan agreement	A4
5	15.06.2016	Link letter	A5
6	15.06.2016	Irrevocable mandate for deduction of loan installments	A6
7	15.06.2016	Memorandum of deposit of title deeds	A7
8	15.06.2016	Sale deed	A8
9	28.05.2024	Legal notice	A9
10	-	Returned postal cover	A10
11	-	Returned postal cover	A11
12	-	Statement of housing loan account	A12

¶67

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Tulasi Prasad K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Tulasi Prasad K

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 Sunil Rajbanshi and Ors.

Nachattar Singh versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Sri Ajay Raj versus Sir M Visvesvaraya Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Hadimba Agro Industry and Another versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Bank of India versus Ram Patidar

Smt Bhagya T C versus Canara Bank