Allowed

Canara Bank v. Ramachandregowda

DRT30 Jan 2026OA/308/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed a Recovery Certificate application filed by Canara Bank against three defendants for an agricultural loan default of 27.98 lakhs. The Court considered the case ex parte, found the application well within limitation, and directed recovery of the principal amount with reduced interest at 6% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 27,98,837.36 with 6% simple interest till realization, executable against defendants' assets.

Canara Bank versus Ramachandregowda — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 30^th Day of January, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.308/2025

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank Halebeedu Branch, Taluk, Belur Dist. Hassan – 573 121

¶6

Through its Chief Manager Mr. Pronojit Sarkar …APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Mr. G R Ramachandre Gowda S/o. late Range Gowda Age 59 years At & post: Gangoor Villagem, Halebeedu Hobli, Belur Taluk, Dist. Hassan Dist. Hassan – 573 121

¶9

Smt. Moulya R. Gowda D/o. G R Ramachandre Gowda Age 23 years At & post: Gangoor Villagem, Halebeedu Hobli, Belur, Taluk, Dist. Hassan Dist. Hassan – 573 121

¶10

Mr. Mourya S/o. G R Ramachandre Gowda Age: 19 years At & post: Gangoor Villagem, Halebeedu Hobli, Belur Taluk, Dist. Hassan Dist. Hassan – 573 121 ...DEFENDANTS

¶11

OA-308/2025

¶12

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : Mr. Venu K V Defendants : Ex parte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking for issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 27,98,837.36/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Seven and Paisa Thirty Six Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶17

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants are availed the credit facilities:

¶18

Agricultural facility of Rs. 5,85,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Only) for crop production.

¶19

Agricultural facility of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) for farm management.

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed the necessary loan document along with simple mortgage deed.

¶21

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan amount promptly and regularly, the defendants failed in complying the same, resulting in default in

¶22

OA-308/2025

¶23

¶24

repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶25

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.

¶26

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 14.10.2025.

¶27

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-14 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶28

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.

¶29

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶30

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

¶31

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶32

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶33

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained ex parte. 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,

¶34

OA-308/2025

¶35

¶36

creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount

¶37

due are also proved by the above document. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶38

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal

¶39

find both these issues are in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶40

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are availed for Agricultural purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal is the view that the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

¶41

In the result, OA.No.308/2025 stands allowed,

¶42

The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 27,98,837.36/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Seven and Paisa Thirty Six Only) with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the 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 properties. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶43

OA-308/2025

¶44

¶45

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

¶46

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants

¶47

jointly, severally and personally and their assets are liable for all such

¶48

amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶49

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶53

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in

¶54

terms of this final order.

¶55

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶56

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

¶57

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶58

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in

¶59

the Open Court, this the 30^th Day of January, 2026].

¶60

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Sd/-

OA-308/2025

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶66

AW-1 Pronojit Sarkar, S/o. Pushpen Sarkar, Divisional Manager, of Applicant Bank

¶67

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶68

Exhibit	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	Sanction memorandum dated 13.06.2017
A2	Agreement and deed of hypothecation for Kisan credit card dated 13.06.2017
A3	Simple mortgage was registered on 03.06.2017
A4	Letter of revival dated 04.07.2019
A5	Letter of revival dated 27.05.2022
A6	Sanction memorandum dated 03.05.2017
A7	Agreement and deed of Kissan OD dated 05.09.2017 executed by defendants
A8	Simple mortgage deed dated 05.09.2017
A9	Letter of revival dated 04.07.2019
A10	Letter of revival dated 22.02.2022
A11	Legal notice dated 04.11.2024
A12	True extract of statement of accounts pertaining to the defendants aforesaid loan accounts no. 0552840014747
A13	True extract of statement of accounts pertaining to the defendants aforesaid loan accounts no. 0552897000589
A14	Combined statement showing total outstanding liabilities
Witness	Examined for the Defendants: -Nil -
List of D	ocuments Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil -

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Ramachandregowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Ramachandregowda

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