Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Sujata

DRT27 Mar 2026OA/208/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This DRT allowed an Original Application under Section 19 RDB Act 1993 filed by Karnataka Grameena Bank for a recovery certificate against two defendants defaulting on an NPA housing loan. The court reduced interest to 8% p.a. and awarded costs.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate for Rs.47,40,804.70 with 8% p.a. simple interest; executable against schedule property and defendants jointly/severally.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Sujata — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of March, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.208/2025

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Karnataka Grameena Bank M.B. Nagar Branch MG Road, Kalaburagi-585102 Rep. by Senior Manager Sri. Manik

¶7

… APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Smt. Sujata W/o. Channabasayya Nandikol Aged aobut 53 years R/o. H.No.10-597/1, Binoba Bhave Chowk, Temple Road, Brampur, Kalaburagi-585103

¶10

Sri. Neelakantayya S/o. Huchayya Mathapati Aged about major, R/o. 1^st Cross, Basaveswar Colony, Kalaburagi-585105

¶11

...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Sri. Naveen Tao Defendants : Exparte

¶14

:FINAL ORDER:

¶15

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed

¶16

OA. No.208/2025

¶17

¶18

under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.47,40,804.70 (Rupees Forty Seven Lakh Forty Thousand Eight Hundred Four and Seventy Paisa 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 HLCC—Commercial Complex loan of Rs.60,00,000/on 30.03.2017.

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facility, the defendants executed necessary loan documents. Apart from the creation of security interest by way of mortgage over the Schedule property.

¶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.208/2025

¶24

¶25

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 27.11.2025.

¶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

¶29

claim as against the defendants?

¶30

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶33

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

¶34

OA. No.208/2025

¶35

¶36

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

¶37

within the limitation.

¶38

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the

¶39

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

¶40

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was availed for housing purposes and also that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view

¶41

of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 8.00%

¶42

p.a.(simple).

¶43

In the result, OA.No.208/2025 stands allowed,

¶44

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶45

of Rs.47,40,804.70 (Rupees Forty Seven Lakh Forty Thousand Eight Hundred Four and Seventy Paisa only) with further interest of 8.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization

¶46

from the defendants, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed

¶47

the same to be recovered by proceeding against defendants

¶48

OA. No.208/2025

¶49

¶50

jointly, severally and personally and also by proceeding against

¶51

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

¶52

schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶53

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

¶54

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants

¶55

jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan account.

¶56

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶60

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

¶61

with this Final Order.

¶62

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶63

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

¶64

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶65

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

¶66

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶67

OA. No.208/2025

¶68

ANNEXURES

¶69

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶70

AW-1: Sri. Manik, Senior Manager of the applicant bank.

¶71

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶72

Sl. No.	Date	Description of Documents	Exhibit Number
1	15.03.2017	Application form for housing loan	A1
2	28.03.2017	Letter evidencing deposit of title deeds	A2
3	30.03.2017	Term loan agreement for commercial complexes/ buildings others then housing	A3
4	30.03.2017	Pronote along with take delivery letter to DPN	A4
5	30.03.2017	Loan sanction conveying letter	A5
6	14.06.2019	Letter of revival	A6
7	01.06.2022	Letter of revival	A7
8	06.09.2024	Legal notice	A8
9	06.09.2024	Two postal receipts	A9
10	-	One postal cover returned unserved one acknowledgment served	A10 & A11
11	-	Bank statement (A/c.No.10515202005917)	A12

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Sujata

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Sujata

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

State Bank of India versus Rajendrakumar Jain

Inno Infra Pvt. Ltd. and 9 Others versus Indian Overseas Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Rajdeepsinh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Sher Singh

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Smt. Jaswinder Kaur

Hdfc Bank versus Ms Bandhav Filling Centre