Allowed

Canara Bank v. Kanumalli Rambabu

DRT27 Aug 2026OA/351/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Canara Bank seeking a Recovery Certificate for an agricultural loan default. The Tribunal found the claim well-supported by documentary evidence despite the ex parte absence of defendants.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 31,10,63,657/- plus interest at 6% p.a. (simple) recoverable from defendants jointly, severally, and personally, and against schedule properties.

Canara Bank versus Kanumalli Rambabu — Specific Performance | 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 OA.No.351/2023

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank Branch at: Shahpr Branch, Shashpur Municipal Office Compound, Shashpur – 585 223, Yadgiri District …APPLICANT

¶6

AND:

¶7

Sri. Kanumalli Rambabu S/o. K Prasad Rao Aged about 46 years R/at: Gollalesdhwara Nilaya, Near KEB, Bapugowda Nagar, Shahapur, Yadgir District – 585 223

¶8

Sri. Subbarao Kanumalli S/o. Ramarao Kanumalli Aged about 70 years R/at: Bapugowda Nagar, Shahapur, Yadgir District – 585 223

¶9

Sri. K Ravindranath Chowdary S/o. K Subbarao Aged about 57 years R/at: Bapugowda Nagar, Shahapur, Yadgir District – 585 223

¶10

Smt. K Venkata Subbalaxmi

¶11

W/o. Ravindranath Chowdary Aged about 42 years R/at: Bapugowda Nagar, Shahapur, Yadgir District – 585 223

¶12

Sri. Kanumalli Rajani S/o. Kanumalli Nagendra Aged about 42 years

¶13

OA-351/2023

¶14

¶15

R/at: 9-37B, Srinivasapuram, Karnool – 518 573, Andra Pradesh

¶16

Sri. Nagendra parasad Kanumalli S/o. K Parasad Aged about 46 years R/at: 9-37B, Srinivasapuram, Karnool – 518 573, Andra Pradesh

¶17

Sri. Kanumalli Prasad S/o. Ramaraod Kanumalli Aged about 70 years R/at: Near KEB, Bapugowda Nagar, Shahapur, Yadgir District – 585 223

¶18

Smt. Kanumalli Subbalakshmi W/o. Kanumalli Rambabu Aged about 47 years R/at; Near KEB, Bapugowda Nagar, Shahapur, Yadgir District – 585 223

¶19

Sri. K Srinivas Rao S/o. Kanumalli Subbarao Aged about 52 years R/at: Near KEB, Bapugowda Nagar, Shahapur, Yadgir District – 585 223 ...DEFENDANTS

¶20

Counsel on record/appeared for: Applicant : Sri. M R Shashidhar Defendants : Ex parte

¶21

FINAL ORDER

¶22

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 31,10,63,657/- (Rupees Thirty-One Crores Ten Lakhs Sixty-

¶23

Three Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty-Seven Only) with further

¶24

OA-351/2023

¶25

¶26

interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶27

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants are availed a term loan of Rs. 1,85,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty-Five Lakhs Only) for the purpose of establishing lift irrigation and land development project.

¶28

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

¶29

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan amount promptly and regularly, the defendants failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶30

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.

¶31

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 26.02.2025.

¶32

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-9 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶33

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.

¶34

OA-351/2023

¶35

¶36

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶37

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

¶38

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶39

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶40

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 facility as stated in the OA, creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above document. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶41

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal find both these issues are 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 facility is 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).

¶43

OA-351/2023

¶44

¶45

In the result, OA.No.351/2023 stands allowed,

¶46

The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs.

¶47

31,10,63,657/- (Rupees Thirty-One Crores Ten Lakhs Sixty-Three Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty-Seven 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.

¶48

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

¶49

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their assets are liable for all such

¶50

amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶51

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶55

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

¶56

OA-351/2023

¶57

¶58

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶59

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

¶60

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶61

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

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶64

ANNEXURES

¶65

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶66

AW-1 R Laxmikanth, S/o Surya Naik, Officer, of Applicant Bank.

¶67

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶68

Exhi bits	Particulars
A1	Loan application dated 07.09.2015
A2	Sanction proceedings dated 07.09.2015
A3	Registered Simple mortgage deed dated 09.11.2015
A4	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural advances for agricultural loans, dated 21.12.2015
A5 & A6	Revivals letter dated 09.08.2018 and 8.07.2021
A7 & A8	The recall notice on 25.10.2022 & legal notice dated 07.03.2020 and 16.11.2022
A9	Certified statement account extract
Witne	ss Examined for the Defendants: -Nil -
List of	Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil -

¶69

Sd/-

Canara Bank v. Kanumalli Rambabu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Kanumalli Rambabu

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