Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Shavantramma and Others

DRT30 Jan 2026OA/2456/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for a recovery certificate under the RDB Act. Noting the defendants remained in default and did not appear, the Tribunal awarded the principal amount plus interest at a reduced rate of 6% p.a. The order authorizes recovery from the mortgaged property and the personal assets of defendants.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.47,60,443.94 with 6% simple interest; recovery allowed against defendant No.4 property, then personal assets of defendants No.1-3.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 30^th Day of January, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.2456/2024

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Karnataka Grameena Bank (Erstwhile Pragathi Gramin Bank) Branch office at: Deodurga Branch, Taluk Deodurga Raichur District- 584111

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Smt. Shavantramma S/o. Late Mallikarjuna

¶9

Sri. Amatheppa S/o. Late Mallikarjuna

¶10

Sri. Sharanegouda S/o. Late Mallikarjuna

¶11

Sri. Sanjevareddy S/o. Basanegouda

¶12

All R/at: Joladedagi Village, Raichur Taluk, Raichur District

¶13

...DEFENDANTS

¶14

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶15

Applicant : Mohamed Afroze Ahamed Defendants : Exparte

OA 2456-2024

FINAL ORDER

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 Rs.47,60,443.94 (Rupees only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that Late. Sri Mallikarjuna was the deceased borrower and defendants No.1 to 3 are his legal heirs. Late Sri. Mallikarjuna and Defendant No.4 had availed the following credit facilities from the applicant bank:-

¶21

I. Agricultural Loan of a sum of Rs.4,78,800/- (Rupees four lakh seventy eight thousand eight hundred Only) and

¶22

II. KCC loan limit of Rs.1,65,000/- (Rupees One lakh sixty five thousand Only).

¶23

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with registered mortgage deed, on demand promissory note, sanction memorandum and letters of revival in favor of the applicant bank.

¶24

It is further contended that, the defendants despite

¶25

¶26

OA 2456-2024

¶27

availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, failed in complying the same, resulting in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶28

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.

¶29

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 24.09.2025.

¶30

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-37 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶31

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and the proof affidavit.

¶32

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶33

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶34

OA 2456-2024

¶35

¶36

OA claim as against the defendant?

¶37

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶38

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶39

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶43

are availed by defendants for agricultural purpose and also that

¶44

OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate,

¶45

OA 2456-2024

¶46

¶47

this Tribunal, in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest @6% p.a.(Simple).

¶48

In the result, OA.No.2456/2024, stands allowed,

¶49

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶50

sum of Rs.47,60,443.94 (Rupees forty seven lakh sixty thousand

¶51

four hundred forty three and paisa ninety four only) with further interest @6% p.a. (Simple),

¶52

from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendant No.4 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 proceedings against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶53

(ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendant No.1 personally and his other assets are liable to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶54

(iii). Being the legal heirs of Late Sri. Mallikarjuna, the

¶55

defendants No.1 to 3 are liable to the extent of estate inherited by the deceased borrower.

¶56

OA 2456-2024

¶57

¶58

iv) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶59

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

¶60

receipt of the order.

¶61

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

¶62

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶63

vi) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of

¶64

in terms of this final order.

¶65

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶66

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

¶67

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶68

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 30^th day of January, 2026].

¶69

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA 2456-2024

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶74

AW-1: Basavaraj. L Patil, Manager, of the Applicant Bank.

¶75

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶76

The documents are appended in this order.

¶77

Witness Examined for the Defendant: -Nil - List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶78

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Shavantramma and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Shavantramma and Others

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

S Rajeswari versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Kishan Mitrapal Chawla Dairy

Bank of India versus Ms Narmada Pipes

Ms Khajuria Constructions and Another versus State Bank of India

Raj Kumar Baniya versus State Bank of India

Smt Firoja Begum versus Indian Bank