Allowed

Canara Bank v. Ayyanagowda

DRT11 Sept 2026OA/1978/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT Karnataka allowed an original application filed by Canara Bank for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against a defendant who obtained an agricultural loan of Rs. 4.5 lakh. The defendant, appearing ex parte, failed to rebut the bank's evidence establishing the availment of credit facility, execution of a mortgage deed, and subsequent defaults. The Tribunal found the claim valid and within limitation, directing the issuance of a Recovery Certificate for the outstanding principal and a reduced interest rate of 6% simple per annum.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 60,51,334.03 with further interest @6.00% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing the OA till realization from the defendant personally and/or from schedule properties. A Recovery Certificate was to be drawn and transferred.

Canara Bank versus Ayyanagowda — 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.1978/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M/s Canara Bank Kalburgi Main 1 Branch, Janata Bazar Building, Super Market Complex, Kalburgi -585101. Represented by Senior Manager, Mr. Satwant Singh.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Mr. Ayyanagowda S/o Erappana Gowda Aged about 49 years, R/o Maradgi S M Village, Jewargi Taluk, Kalburgi District-585 310.

¶10

...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : Naveen Tao 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 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 60,51,334.03/(Rupees Sixty Lakh Fifty One Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Four and

¶15

2 1978/2024

¶16

Paise Three Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶17

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant availed the Agricultural Loan under Farm Machinery Loan facility of Rs. 4,50,000/from the applicant bank.

¶18

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with Simple Mortgage Deed, Agricultural Credit Term Loan.

¶19

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, the defendant failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts 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, taking out summons the defendant failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 06.03.2025.

¶22

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-13 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and

¶24

3 1978/2024

¶25

proof affidavit.

¶26

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶27

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

¶28

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶29

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶30

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 as stated in the OA, creation of Mortgage as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts.

¶31

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.

¶32

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal

¶33

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

¶34

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was

¶35

availed for Agricultural purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at

¶36

4 1978/2024

¶37

by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view of the OA

¶38

can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

¶39

In the result, OA.No.1978/2024, stands allowed,

¶40

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 60,51,334.03/- (Rupees Sixty Lakh Fifty One Thousand Three hundred Thirty Four and paise Three Only) with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendant 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.

¶41

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant personally and his assets are liable for the amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶45

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms

¶46

5 1978/2024

¶47

of this final order.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

Rules, 1993.

¶51

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

Sd/-

(T. RAJESH)

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶57

AW-1: Bhoom Reddy, Manager of the applicant Bank

¶58

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶59

Annexure	Date	List of Documents
A1	03.03.2004	Simple Mortgage Deed registered as Document No. JVG-1-02133-2033-04 at the Office of Sub registrar, Jewargi
A2	04.03.2004	Application for Agricultural Credit Term loan (A/c No. 0513856005635)
A3	04.03.2004	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans
A4	5.12.2006	Letter of Revival
A5	04.12.2008	Letter of Revival
A6	07.01.2011	Letter of Revival
A7	13.12.2012	Letter of Revival
A8	12.12.2015	Letter of Revival

¶60

6 1978/2024

¶61

A9	13.06.2018	Letter of Revival
A10	13.01.2021	Letter of Revival
A11	29.12.2023	Legal Notice along with postal receipts
A12	--	Postal Cover returned unserved
A13	--	Bank Statement A/c No. 0513856005632

¶62

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

¶63

-Nil -

¶64

Sd/-
(T. RAJESH)

¶65

PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Ayyanagowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Ayyanagowda

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