Allowed

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Janardhan and Another

DRT27 May 2026OA/1986/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed the applicant bank's recovery certificate application against defendants who defaulted on an agricultural term loan. The court adjusted interest to 6% simple per annum despite the default.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 34,70,347.56 plus 6% simple interest per annum; schedule properties liable for realization; balance recoverable from personal assets.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Janardhan and Another — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of April, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1986/2024

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Karnataka Bank Ltd. Head office at: Mahaveera Circle, Kankanady, Post Box No. 599, Mangalore – 575 002 Branch office at: No. 815, Opposite Sarvajna Park, Bangarpet Road, Fort, Kolar – 563 101

¶6

Represented by its Branch Manager

¶7

Sri. Gurrala Ananda Babu …APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Janardhana G S/o. C V Gopalaiah Aged about 60 years Residing at: Chunchadenahalli Village, Arabhi Kothanur Post, Kolar Taluk, Kolar

¶10

Sri. Venkataswamy N S/o. late Narayanappa Aged about 69 years Residing at: Vidhyabhivruddhi High School

¶11

Kolar ...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : C S Satish Defendants : Ex parte

OA-1986/2024

FINAL ORDER

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking for issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs 34,70,347.56/- (Rupees Thirty-Four Lakhs Seventy Thousand Three Hundred and Forty-Seven and Paisa Fifty-Six 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 are availed a Term loan of Rs. 19,80,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Eighty Thousand Only) for the purpose of constructing poly house and cultivation of capsicum.

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loan, the defendants executed the necessary loan document along with registered mortgage deed.

¶20

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 accounts as NPA.

¶21

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.

¶22

OA-1986/2024

¶23

¶24

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 05.12.2025.

¶25

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-9 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶26

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 remains unrebutted as defendants remained ex parte. 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 the security interest and the defaults committed in the

¶32

accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount

¶33

due are also proved by the above document. The claim of the

¶34

OA-1986/2024

¶35

¶36

applicant is well within the limitation.

¶37

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

¶38

find both these issues are in favour of applicant and hence, this

¶39

Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶40

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility is availed for Agricultural purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal is the view that the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

¶41

In the result, OA.No.1986/2024 stands allowed,

¶42

The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 34,70,347.56/- (Rupees Thirty-Four Lakhs Seventy Thousand Three Hundred and Forty-Seven and Paisa Fifty-Six Only) with further interest @6.00 % 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 the schedule properties. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶43

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

¶44

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their assets are liable for balance

¶45

OA-1986/2024

¶46

¶47

amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶48

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶52

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

¶53

terms of this final order.

¶54

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶55

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

¶56

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶57

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in

¶58

the Open Court, this the 27^th Day of April, 2026].

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶61

ANNEXURES WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶62

AW-1 Guralla Ananda Babu, S/o. Gurrala Musalaiah, Branch Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶63

OA-1986/2024

¶64

¶65

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶66

Exhibit	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	Sanction order dated 27.03.2014
A2	Term loan agreement dated 27.03.2014
A3	Declaration dated 27.03.2014
A4	Consent letter dated 27.03.2014
A5	Consent letter dated 27.03.2014 2^nddefendant
A6	Hypothecation agreement dated 27.03.2014
A7	Registered mortgage dated 20.03.2014
A8	Recall notice dated 18.05.2018
A9	Statement of account a/c no. 4247001800059101

¶67

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶68

-Nil -

¶69

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶70

-Nil -

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Janardhan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Janardhan 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

Canara Bank versus H P Trading Co. and Anr.

Sebastian Sabu versus Indian Bank

Parveen versus Bank of Baroda

Canara Bank versus M/S Vee Kay Chemicals

M/S K v Advertiser Agency versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Ms Swarraj International Ca versus State Bank of India