Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Ranganath

DRT24 Feb 2026OA/233/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed the application for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. Evidence was un-rebutted. Award affirmed simple interest at 6% p.a. Defendants permitted to be proceeded against personally and hypothecated/mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

OA allowed; Recovery Certificate to be issued for Rs.37,15,150.40 with simple interest @ 6% p.a.; recovery against mortgaged/hypothecated properties and defendant's other assets if insufficient.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of February, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH Hon’ble Presiding Officer

¶4

O.A.No.233 of 2024

¶5

Karnataka Gramin Bank, Branch Office at Valmiki Circle, Jalahalli – 584 116. Devadurga Taluk, Raichur District. Represented by its Branch Manager Manjunath.A.

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Sri Ranganath, S/o.Sri Sangappa, Residing near Santhe Bazar, Varatagere, Jalahalli Village, Devadurga Taluk, Raichur District – 584 116.

¶9

Also at

¶10

Nagarahala Village, Lingasugur Taluk, Raichur District – 584 127.

¶11

Smt.Lakshmavva, W/o. Sri Sangappa, Residing near Santhe Bazar, Varatagere, Jalahalli Village, Devadurga Taluk, Raichur District – 584 116. … Defendants.

¶12

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. M & R Consult. Defendants : Exparte.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Application is filed under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for a sum of Rs.37,15,150.40 together with interest @15% p.a. compounded half yearly from the date of OA till the date of realisation together with costs from the defendants jointly and severally and by way of sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶16

The Applicant contends that the defendants approached the applicant bank for Farm Mechanization Loan of Rs.4,90,000/- for the purpose of purchase of Tractor and Trailer and availed the same on 30.12.2005 by execution of necessary loan documents including Memorandum of Agreement for Agricultural Loans. The defendants have also hypothecated the Tractor and Trailer described in schedule ‘A’ to the OA for due repayment of the aforesaid credit facility. The defendants 1 and 2 separately mortgaged the properties described in schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ to the OA respectively in favour of applicant and executed Simple Mortgage Deeds on 28.12.2005.

¶17

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶18

¶19

The Applicant further contends that after availing the aforesaid facility, the defendants failed to regularize the said loan and hence the loan account of the defendants was classified as NPA on 19.03.2021. The applicant bank had also issued Legal Notice dt.14.11.2022 calling upon the defendants for repayment of dues. Despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount the defendants failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant to make the defendants pay back the amount failed, forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶20

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 19.12.2024.

¶21

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 A16, got the same marked in evidence.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

ii)If so, to what extent?

¶25

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶26

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible

¶27

¶28

and are sufficient to prove the OA claim. Hence the Applicant is

¶29

found to be entitled for the OA claim. The OA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶30

Since the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest with default interest and that the facilities are availed in respect of Farm Mechanization Loan the pendent lite and future interest is awarded at simple rate that too at reduced rate of 6% p.a. (simple).

¶31

In view of the above

¶32

i) OA No.233 of 2024 stands allowed. ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.37,15,150.40 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakhs Fifteen Thousands One Hundred Fifty and Paise Forty only) together with interest @6% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of OA till the date of 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 mentioned properties. The schedule to the OA to be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶33

¶34

iii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient to clear the liability, then defendants are personally and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against for realization of respective dues.

¶35

iv) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the Recovery Officer to enable recovery of the dues as per the above terms.

¶36

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

¶37

vi) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶38

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

¶39

of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶40

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24^th day of February, 2026)

¶41

Sd./- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

Applicant Witness:

¶43

AW1 –Sri Manjunath.A., Branch Manager, Applicant Bank.

¶44

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶45

Ext.A1 - Application for Agricultural Credit – Farm Mechanization Loan dt.28.11.2005.

¶46

¶47

Ext.A2 - FML Sanction Memorandum dt.26.12.2005. Ext.A3 - Memorandum of Agreement for Agricultural Loans dt.30.12.2005. Ext.A4 - Simple Mortgage Deed dt.28.12.2005. Ext.A5 - Simple Mortgage Deed dt.28.12.2005. Ext.A6 - Registration Certificate of Tractor dt.10.01.2006. Ext.A7 - Registration Certificate of Trailer dt.10.01.2006. Ext.A8 - Letter of Revival dt.14.10.2008. Ext.A9 - Letter of Revival dt.21.09.2011. Ext.A10 - Letter of Revival dt. 21.09.2011. Ext.A11 - Letter of Revival dt.16.09.2014. Ext.A12 - Letter of Revival dt.31.08.2017. Ext.A13 - Letter of Revival dt.22.06.2020. Ext.A14 - Letter of Revival dt.19.05.2023. Ext.A15 - Legal Notice dt.14.11.2022. Ext.A16 - Statement of account certified under Bankers’ Book of Evidence Act in r/o. Loan A/c.No.67215325001605.

¶48

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶49

NIL

¶50

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants :

¶51

NIL

¶52

Sd./-

¶53

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Ranganath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Ranganath

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

Union Bank of India versus Mr Mohammad Akram S/O Mohammad Quasam

Samiran Roy versus Bank of Baroda

State Bank of India versus Hetali Roshan Fernandes

Ms Tulsi Mineral Water versus State Bank of India

Ms Rehana Enterprise and Anr. versus Bank of Baroda

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank versus Gunderao