Allowed

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank v. Dundamma

DRT20 Aug 2026OA/2380/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Karnataka Grameena Bank seeking issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 23.10 lakh. The Tribunal reduced interest to 6% p.a. and ordered recovery from the defendant, including against schedule properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate to be drawn for Rs. 23.10 lakh with interest at 6% p.a. to be recovered from the defendant, including against schedule properties.

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank versus Dundamma — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 20^th Day of August 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.2380/2025

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Karnataka Grameena Bank Afzalpur Branch Gour (B) Taluk, Kalaburgi District-585301. …APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Smt. Dundamma W/o.Sri.Bhimanna Kachapur, R/at:Gour (B) Village, Afzal Taluk, Kalburgi District-585301

¶9

...DEFENDANT

¶10

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶11

Applicant : Mr.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.23,10,160.00 (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs Ten Thousand One Hundred Sixty Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶14

2 OA No.2380/2025

¶15

The Defendant availed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) for the purpose of growing crops sugarcane.

¶16

The Defendant availed a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) for the purpose of installing pipeline and pump set.

¶17

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facility, the defendant executed necessary loan documents, being owner of the schedule properties. Apart from the creation of security interest by way of mortgage, hypothecation over the Schedule properties

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, they failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 07.04.2026.

¶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 A20 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶22

3 OA No.2380/2025

¶23

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.

¶24

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶25

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

¶26

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶27

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

4 OA No.2380/2025

¶31

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was availed for 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% p.a.(simple).

¶32

In the result, OA.No.2380/2025 stands allowed,

¶33

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs.23,10,160.00 (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs Ten Thousand One Hundred Sixty Only) along with current and future interest 6% from the date of filing the application till the date of realization, from the Defendant, 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 property to the OA be the schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

5 OA No.2380/2025

¶40

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

¶41

this Final Order.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

Rules, 1993.

¶45

[Dictated to the Stenographer (GS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 20^th Day of August 2026].

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶48

ANNEXURES

¶49

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶50

AW-1: Sri.Ramesh Babu.M.B, Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

¶51

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶52

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Date	Exhibit Number
1.	Loan Agreement	28.07.2007	A1
2.	Simple Mortgage deed	27.07.2007	A2
3.	Revival Letter	27.07.2010	A3
4.	Revival Letter	19.06.2013	A4
5.	Revival Letter	20.05.20165	A5
6.	Revival Letter	29.04.2019	A6
7.	Revival Letter	22.01.2022	A7

¶53

8.	Acknowledgement of liability/security from the Mortgagors	25.05.2019	A8
9.	Statement of account extract		A9
10.	Sanction Letter	24.06.2008	A10
11.	Loan Agreement	24.06.2008	A11
12.	Simple Mortgage deed	24.06.2008	A12
13.	Revival Letter	20.06.2011	A13
14.	Revival Letter	09.04.2014	A14
15.	Revival Letter	02.04.2017	A15
16.	Revival Letter	30.03.2020	A16
17.	Revival Letter	21.03.2023	A17
18.	Acknowledgement of liability / security from the Mortgagors	30.03.2019	A18
19.	Copy of Legal Notice	06.08.2024	A19
20.	Statement of account extract		A20

¶54

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank v. Dundamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank v. Dundamma

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

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank versus Sri.Heeru Somalu Lamani

Canara Bank versus Sri.Vijayakumar

Canara Bank versus Sri.Veerendra. D.M

Ms Anjani Kumar Srivastava and Others versus Mansarovar Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Mr Amit Kumar Nag and Anr. versus Axis Bank Limited

Sri Tuhin Kumar Das and Another versus Bank of India