Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri Tukkaram Maruthi Tigadi

DRT24 Jul 2026OA/222/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Applicant's Original Application for a Recovery Certificate against Defendants. Since Defendants appeared ex parte, the Tribunal found the evidence sufficient and awarded recovery of the principal plus reduced interest at 6% p.a. simple with permission to proceed against scheduled properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 34,23,649.44 with simple interest at 6% p.a. from date of filing; permission to proceed against scheduled property; cost of proceedings allowed.

Canara Bank versus Sri Tukkaram Maruthi Tigadi — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of July, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.222/2025

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Raibag Branch, Sankpal Bldg Ankali Raod, Raibag Tq Belgaum District-591317. Through its Chief Manager, Mr. Shivakumar A.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Tukaram Maruthi Tigadi,

¶10

S/o Marutho Tigadi, Aged about 29 years, R/o Suttatti Village, Raibag Taluk, Belgaum Dist- 591317.

¶11

Sri. Kamleshwar Tigadi, S/o Marutho Tigadi, Aged about 30 years, R/o Suttatti Village, Raibag Taluk, Belgaum Dist- 591317. ...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Vignesh Shetty Defendants : Exparte

¶14

2 222/2025

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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. 34,23,649.44/(Rupees Thirty Four Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred Forty Nine and paise Forty Four Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶17

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants availed the following credit facilities from the applicant bank:-

¶18

I. Loan of a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Thirty Thousand Only) on 21.03.2007.

¶19

II. Loan of a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ten Thousand Only) on 30.07.2012.

¶20

III. Loan of a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) on 15.05.2012.

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with Simple Mortgage Deed, Agreement for Agricultural Advances, Deed of Guarantee, deed of Guarantee.

¶22

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, the defendants failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶23

3 222/2025

¶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, taking out summons the defendants failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 09.07.2025.

¶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 A-1 to A-12 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

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA 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 remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by

¶33

the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove

¶34

4 222/2025

¶35

availment of credit facilities as stated in the OA, creation of Mortgage as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. 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 within the limitation.

¶36

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

¶37

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities was availed for Agricultural purpose and also that the 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% (simple).

¶38

In the result, OA.No.222/2025, stands allowed,

¶39

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.

¶40

34,23,649.44/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakh Twenty Three Thousand Six Hundred Forty Nine and Paise Forty Four Only) with further interest @ 6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from

¶41

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 schedule

¶42

5 222/2025

¶43

property. Schedule Properties to the OA be the schedule to the recovery

¶44

certificate.

¶45

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

¶46

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their assets are liable for the amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

of this final order.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

Rules, 1993.

¶55

[Dictated to the Stenographer (DV), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 24^th Day of July, 2026].

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

(T. RAJESH)

¶58

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶59

6 222/2025

¶60

ANNEXURES

¶61

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶62

AW-1: Gajanan Shankar Kuri, Manager of the applicant Bank

¶63

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶64

Annexure	Date	List of Documents
A1	02.11.2006	Simple Mortgage Deed
A2	27.03.2007	Agreement for Agricultural Advances
A3	27.03.2007	Deed of Guarantee
A4	06.09.2012	Agreement for Agricultural advances
A5	06.09.2012	Deed of Guarantee
A6	12.03.2012	Simple Mortgage Deed
A7	29.06.2012	Agreement for Agricultural Advances
A8	29.06.2012	Deed of Guarantee
A9	29.08.2022	Legal Notice
A10	--	True Extract of Statement of Accounts pertaining to the defendants loan Accounts-05088540007739
A11	--	True Extract of Statement of Accounts pertaining to the defendants loan Accounts-05088380009819
A12	--	True Extract of Statement of Accounts pertaining to the defendants loan Accounts-05088230000846

¶65

Witness Examined for the Defendants: List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶66

-Nil -

¶67

-Nil –

¶68

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶69

7 222/2025

Canara Bank v. Sri Tukkaram Maruthi Tigadi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri Tukkaram Maruthi Tigadi

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

Kaushelendra Pratap others versus Grihum Housing Finance Limited

Ms Lakshya Textiles Agency versus Uco Bank

Ms Maxx Metal Pvt. Ltd. and Others versus Indian Overseas Bank

Gireesh Chand Garg versus Punjab National Bank

Rohit Jaiswal versus Canara Bank

Smt Alka and Another versus Canara Bank