Allowed

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank v. Shivasharanappa

DRT24 Jul 2026OA/2264/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by a Bank to issue a Recovery Certificate against a defaulting term loan borrower who appeared ex parte. The bank's evidence regarding loan availment, security creation, and defaults was uncontroverted. Interest was reduced to 6% per annum simple.

What did the court decide?

Allowed Recovery Certificate for Rs.24,95,537.08 with 6% p.a. simple interest from defendant personally and against schedule properties.

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank versus Shivasharanappa — 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.2264/2025

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Karnataka Grameena Bank Desai Kallur Branch, Afzalpur Taluk, Kalaburgi District Rep:by its Branch Manager

¶7

… APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri.Shivasharanappa S/o.Sri.Bimaraya Kodakal R/at.Ghulanoor Village, Afrzalpur Taluk, Kalaburgi District-585301. ...DEFENDANT

¶10

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶11

Applicant : Sri. T.S.Mahabaleswara Defendant : 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.24,95,537.08/- (Rupees Twenty-Four Lakhs Ninety-Five Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty-Seven and Paisa Eight Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶14

2 OA NO.2264/2025

¶15

The Defendant has availed a term loan of Rs.6,25,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Twenty-Five Thousand Only) for the purpose of purchase of Tractor, Trailer and accessories and the defendant has executed the loan documents and executed the mortgage deed.

¶16

The Defendant availed for ATL loan of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) for the purpose of land development etc., and the defendant has executed loan documents and defendant executed a simple mortgage deed.

¶17

The Defendant availed Crop Loan of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand Only) for the purpose of growing the sugar cane and defendant has executed the loan documents and executed the mortgage deed

¶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 and hypothecation over the Schedule properties.

¶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

3 OA NO.2264/2025

¶22

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 02.04.2026.

¶23

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 A37 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶24

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.

¶25

10. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶26

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendant?

¶27

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶28

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶29

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant 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 applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due

¶30

4 OA NO.2264/2025

¶31

are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶32

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶33

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was availed for Vehicles and 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).

¶34

In the result, OA.No.2264/2025 stands allowed,

¶35

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of

¶36

Rs.24,95,537.08/- (Rupees Twenty-Four Lakhs Ninety-Five Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty-Seven and Paisa Eight Only) with further interest of 6.00% p.a.(simple) from defendant personally after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA if any, and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule properties. The schedule properties to the OA be the schedule properties to the Recovery Certificate.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

5 OA NO.2264/2025

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶44

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

¶45

this Final Order.

¶46

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure)

¶47

Rules, 1993.

¶48

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

¶49

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶50

ANNEXURES

¶51

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶52

AW-1: Sri. Amarnath N Shetty, Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

¶53

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶54

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Exhibit Number
1.	Loan Application	A1
2.	Loan Agreement	A2
3.	Registered Mortgage deed	A3

¶55

6 OA NO.2264/2025

¶56

4.	Registered Mortgage deed	A4
5.	Revival Letter	A5
6.	Revival Letter	A6
7.	Revival Letter	A7
8.	Revival Letter	A8
9.	Revival Letter	A9
10.	Revival Letter	A10
11.	Acknowledgment of Security / Liability	A11
12.	Copy of Legal Notice	A12
13.	Statement of Account extract	A13
14.	Loan Application	A14
15.	Sanction Letter	A15
16.	Loan Agreement	A16
17.	Registered Mortgage Deed	A17
18.	Revival Letter	A18
19.	Revival Letter	A19
20.	Revival Letter	A20
21.	Revival Letter	A21
22.	Revival Letter	A22
23.	Revival Letter	A23
24.	Acknowledgement of Security / Liability	A24
25.	Copy of Legal Notice	A25
26.	Statement of Account extract	A26
27.	Loan Application	A27
28.	Loan Agreement	A28
29.	Registered Mortgage deed	A29
30.	Revival Letter	A30
31.	Revival Letter	A31
32.	Revival Letter	A32
33.	Revival Letter	A33
34.	Revival Letter	A34

¶57

7 OA NO.2264/2025

¶58

35.	Acknowledgment of Security / Liability	A35
36.	Copy of Legal Notice	A36
37.	Statement of account extract along with Bankers Certificate	A37

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank v. Shivasharanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank v. Shivasharanappa

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