Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Hanumappa Alias Hirehanumappa

DRT27 Aug 2026OA/2076/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application for a recovery certificate against two defendants who defaulted on an agricultural KCC loan. The court reduced the interest rate to 6% simple while granting the principal and accrued interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate allowed for Rs. 20,32,435 plus 6% simple interest from filing date, recoverable jointly and severally from defendants.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Hanumappa Alias Hirehanumappa — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of August, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA.No.2076/2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Karnataka Grameena Bank Branch office at: Tidigol Branch, Tidigol village, Sindhanur Taluk, Raichur – 584 128

¶8

Represented by its Branch Manager Sri. Sake Siddaiah …APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Sri. Hanumappa @ Hirehanumappa S/o. Mariyappa R/at: Tidigol Village, Sindhanur Taluk, Raichur Dist. – 584 128

¶11

Sri. Eshwarappa Gadratagi S/o. Rudrappa R/at: Nidigol Village, Sidhanur Taluk, Raichur District – 584 128 ...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Bapu Vishnu Defendants : Ex parte

¶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 seeking for issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants

¶17

for Rs 20,32,435/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Thirty-Two Thousand Four

¶18

OA-2076/2025

¶19

¶20

Hundred and Thirty-Five Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶21

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants are availed an KCC loan of Rs. 7,72,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Only) for agricultural purpose.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 08.04.2026.

¶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 A-1 to A-8 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

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.

¶28

OA-2076/2025

¶29

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶31

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶32

claim as against the defendants?

¶33

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶41

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).

¶42

OA-2076/2025

¶43

¶44

In the result, OA.No.2076/2025 stands allowed,

¶45

The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs.

¶46

20,32,435/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Thirty-Two Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty-Five 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 amounts 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.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶50

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶54

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

¶55

OA-2076/2025

¶56

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶60

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27^th Day of August, 2026].

Sd/-

(T. RAJESH)

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶65

AW-1 Sri. Sake Siddaiah, S/o Sake Sreeramulu, Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶66

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶67

Exhi bits	Particulars
A1	Loan application dated 05.05.2015
A2	Loan agreement dated 15.05.2015
A3	Simple mortgage deed dated 15.05.2015
A4	Letter of revival dated 05.05.2018
A5	Letter of revival dated 17.08.2020
A6	Letter of revival dated 10.08.2023
A7	Legal notice dated 25.04.2025
A8	Copy of the statement of account certified under bankers’ book of evidence act, showing the outstanding liability under KCC account no. 88215354019417
Witne	ss Examined for the Defendants: -Nil -

¶68

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶69

-Nil -

¶70

Sd/-

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Hanumappa Alias Hirehanumappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Hanumappa Alias Hirehanumappa

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Shilpy

Bank of India versus Sh. Hardev Singh

Bank of India versus Amarjit Kaur

Santosh Kumari versus Central Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mokksh

Ms Tamanna Enterprises versus Indian Bank