Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Sri Siddanna

DRT27 Aug 2026OA/2772/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed the bank's application for a Recovery Certificate against an absent defendant for an agricultural loan. The court exempted compound interest, permitting recovery of the principal and 6% simple interest p.a. against the schedule property.

What did the court decide?

Issued Recovery Certificate for Rs. 22,79,494.40 plus future interest at 6% p.a. (simple) against the schedule property and the defendant's other assets.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Sri Siddanna — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of August 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.2772/2025

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Karnataka Grameena Bank Udachan Branch, Udachan village and Post, Afzalpur Taluk, Kalaburagi District-585217.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri.Siddanna S/o.Dattu Biradar R/o.Bhosga Village, Afzalpur Taluk, Gulbarga District-585301. ...DEFENDANT

¶10

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶11

Applicant : Mr.M.Krishnappa 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.22,79,494.40/- (Rupees Twenty-Two Lakhs Seventy-Nine Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-Four and Paisa Forty Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶14

2 OA No.2772/2025

¶15

The Defendant availed a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Thirty Thousand only) for the purpose of Agriculture.

¶16

The Defendant availed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) under Kisan Credit Card. The defendant loan was restructured for Rs.1,90.786/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand Seven Hundred EightySix only) as KCC-ST-Converted Loan.

¶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 property. Apart from the creation of security interest by way of mortgage over the Schedule property.

¶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 25.03.2026.

¶21

3 OA No.2772/2025

¶22

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.

¶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

4 OA No.2772/2025

¶30

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.

¶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.2772/2025 stands allowed,

¶33

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs.22,79,494.40/- (Rupees Twenty-Two Lakhs Seventy-Nine Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-Four and Paisa Forty 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 property. 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 amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant and his other assets are liable for all such amounts due in loan accounts.

¶35

5 OA No.2772/2025

¶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

¶39

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶40

v) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of with this Final Order.

¶41

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)

¶42

Rules, 1993.

¶43

[Dictated to the Stenographer (GS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27^th Day of August 2026].

Sd/-

6 OA No.2772/2025

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶48

AW-1: Sri.Akash B Kolld, Asst.Manager of the applicant bank.

¶49

Sl. No	Description of Documents	Date	Exhibits Number
1.	Appraisal Memorandum-Cum Sanction Letter	23.04.2006	A1
2.	Simple Mortgage Deed registered as document No.AZP-1-00321-2006-07 at the office of sub-registrar Afzalpur	26.04.2006	A2
3.	Loan Agreement	26.04.2006	A3
4.	Sanction Letter	26.04.2006	A4
5.	Letter of Revival	03.12.2008	A5
6.	Letter of Revival	01.12.2011	A6
7.	Letter of Revival	29.11.2014	A7
8.	Letter of Revival	22.11.2017	A8
9.	Acknowledgement of Security / Liability from Mortgagors	03.04.2018	A9
10.	Letter of Revival	04.09.2020	A10
11.	Letter of Revival	02.09.2023	A11
12.	Simple Mortgage Deed registered as document No.AZP-1-01886-2009-10 at the office of Sub-registrar Afzalpur	16.07.2009	A12
13.	Application for Crop Loan/Renewal Application	07.08.2009	A13
14.	Loan Agreement	07.08.2009	A14
15.	Letter of Revival	25.06.2012	A15
16.	Letter of Revival	25.03.2015	A16

¶50

7 OA No.2772/2025

¶51

17.	Letter of Revival	14.03.2018	A17
18.	Acknowledgement Security / Liability from	20.04.2019	A18
	Mortgagors
19.	Letter of Revival	28.09.2020	A19
20.	Letter of Revival	20.09.2023	A20

¶52

Sd/(T. RAJESH)

¶53

PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Sri Siddanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Sri Siddanna

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Shilpy

Bank of India versus Sh. Hardev Singh

Bank of India versus Amarjit Kaur

Santosh Kumari versus Central Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mokksh

Ms Tamanna Enterprises versus Indian Bank