Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Rangappa

DRT17 Apr 2026OA/7/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed application for recovery certificate against a defendant who failed to repay an agricultural loan. Evidence was unopposed. Court reduced interest to 6% p.a. and authorized recovery from personal assets and mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for principal of Rs.51,48,877/- with interest at 6% p.a. simple. Recovery from defendant personally and schedule property authorized. Cost of proceedings awarded.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 17^th Day of April, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.7/2025

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Karnataka Grameena Bank Having a branch at Devadurga Devadurga Taluk, Raichur District-584111 Karnataka State, Rep. by its Chief Manager Mr. Basavaraj Patil …

¶7

… APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Rangappa S/o. Sri. Bheemeshappa Aged about 65 years R/at. House Kotigudda village, Devadurga Taluk, Raichur District-584111 ...DEFENDANT

¶10

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶11

Applicant : Sri. K. Raveendran Defendants : Exparte

¶12

:FINAL ORDER:

¶13

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.51,48,877/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Seven only) with further interest thereon

¶14

OA. No.7/2025

¶15

¶16

from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶17

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant availed FML loan of Rs.4.70 Lakhs for the purchase of Tractor and Trailer etc.,

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶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, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 08.07.2025.

¶22

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

¶23

OA. No.7/2025

¶24

¶25

produced Exhibits A1 to A14 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 defendant?

¶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 defendant remained exparte. The evidence

¶33

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 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.

¶34

OA. No.7/2025

¶35

¶36

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the

¶37

issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶38

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was 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% p.a.(simple).

¶39

In the result, OA.No.7/2025 stands allowed,

¶40

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.51,48,877/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Seven 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 by proceeding against the schedule property. The schedule property to the OA be the schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶41

OA. No.7/2025

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

under the loan accounts.

¶46

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶50

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

¶51

with this Final Order.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

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 17^th Day of April 2026].

¶56

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA. No.7/2025

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶61

AW-1: Sri. Basavaraj Patil, Chief Manager of the applicant bank.

¶62

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶63

Sl. No	DOCUMENTS	Exhibit Nos
1	Application for Agricultural credit Form Mechanization Loan dated 05.10.2004	A1
2	F M L Sanction Memorandum dated 08.10.2004	A2
3	Registered Simple Mortgage Deed dated 18.10.2004	A3
4	Memorandum of Agreement for Agricultural Loans dated 20.10.2004	A4
5	Letter of Revival dated 15.10.2007	A5
6	Letter of Revival dated 25.05.2010	A6
7	Letter of Revival dated 15.03.2013	A7
8	Acknowledgement of Security / Liability from Mortgagers dated 26.05.2015	A8
9	Letter of Revival dated 25.02.2016	A9
10	Acknowledgement of Security / Liability from Mortgagers dated 10.06.2016	A10
11	Letter of Revival dated 16.02.2019	A11
12	Letter of Revival dated 03.01.2022	A12
13	Legal Notice dated 03.06.2024	A13
14	Statement of account in respect of FML A/c.No.59115325001104 along with interest sheet and certificate	A14

¶64

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Rangappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Rangappa

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

Hdfc Bank versus Milkha Singh

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Mohd. Arif Khan

Punjab National Bank versus Mr. Satinder Singh

Smt Anniyamma versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Canara Bank versus Chandrappa

Canara Bank versus Sathish