Allowed

Canara Bank v. Guddappa Ningappa Melinamani

DRT20 Aug 2026OA/2800/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's Original Application seeking a Recovery Certificate for an aggregate sum of over Rs. 21 lakhs. The Defendant was exparte. The Tribunal reduced the interest rate to 6% p.a. (simple) because the credit facility was availed for agricultural purposes and ordered recovery from the schedule property and the Defendant's other assets.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 21,46,612.81 with interest at 6% p.a. (simple); recovery permitted from schedule property and defendant's other assets.

Canara Bank versus Guddappa Ningappa Melinamani — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA. No.2800/2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Canara Bank Bellatti Branch, No.CTC 181/1, Nehrunagar, Bellatti (VIII), Shirahatti Taluk, Gadag District-582112.

¶8

…APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Mr.Guddappa Ningappa Melinamani S/o.Ningappa Melinamani, R/at: Koganur Village, Shirahatti Taluk, Gadag District-582112.

¶11

...DEFENDANT

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Mr.M.Mohan Rao Defendant : Exparte

¶14

: FINAL ORDER:

¶15

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.21,46,612.81/- (Rupees Twenty-One Lakhs Forty-Six Thousand Six Hundred Twelve and Paisa Eighty-One Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶16

2 OA No.2800/2025

¶17

The Defendant availed a sum of Rs.7,82,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Eighty-Two Thousand Only) for the purchase of Pump Set for Agricultural needs.

¶18

The Defendant availed a sum of Rs.3,15,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifteen Thousand Only) for the purpose of Raise Crops on the Schedule Property.

¶19

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, hypothecation over the Schedule property

¶20

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.

¶21

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal

¶22

by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

¶23

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, they failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 23.03.2026.

¶24

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 A14 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶25

3 OA No.2800/2025

¶26

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.

¶27

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶28

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

¶29

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶30

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶31

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.

¶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

4 OA No.2800/2025

¶34

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).

¶35

In the result, OA.No.2800/2025 stands allowed,

¶36

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs.21,46,612.81/- (Rupees Twenty-One Lakhs Forty-Six Thousand Six Hundred Twelve and Paisa Eighty-One 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.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶40

5 OA No.2800/2025

¶41

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

¶42

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶43

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

¶44

this Final Order.

¶45

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) Rules, 1993.

¶46

[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].

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶49

ANNEXURES

¶50

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶51

AW-1: Sri.Hukumchand, Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

¶52

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶53

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Date	Exhibit Number
1.	Loan application	15.06.2016	A1
2.	Loan Sanction Memorandum	15.06.2016	A2
3.	Agreement and Deed of Hypothecation for Kisan Credit Card.	15.06.2016	A3
4.	Simple Mortgage Deed executed by Defendant	13.06.2016	A4

¶54

5.	Letter of Revival	14.06.2019	A5
6.	Letter of Revival	13.06.2022	A6
7.	Statement of Loan Account		A7
8.	Loan application	20.07.2017	A8
9.	Loan Sanction Memorandum	20.07.2017	A9
10.	Agreement and Deed of Hypothecation for Kisan Credit Card	20.07.2017	A10
11.	Simple Mortgage Deed executed by Defendant.	11.07.2017	A11
12.	Letter of Revival	18.07.2020	A12
13.	Letter of Revival	15.07.2023	A13
14.	Statement of Loan Account		A14

Canara Bank v. Guddappa Ningappa Melinamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Guddappa Ningappa Melinamani

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