Allowed

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank v. Bhupendragouda Shivanagouda Saligoudar

DRT27 Apr 2026OA/445/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an expert application under Section 19 RDB Act, the Tribunal allowed the recovery certificate dispute between the applicant bank and two defaulting loan borrowers who appeared ex parte, granting reduced interest at 6% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate to be drawn for Rs. 26,68,020/- with interest at 6% p.a. (simple) against defendants jointly, severally, and personally, attachable to schedule property.

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank versus Bhupendragouda… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of April, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.445/2025

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Karnataka Grameena Bank Konnur Branch, Nargund Taluk, Gadag District- 582206

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. Bhupendragouda Shivanagounda Saligoudar S/o. Shivanagouda Saligoudar R/at: Konnur Village, Nargunda Taluk, Gadag District- 582206

¶9

Sri. Shankaragouda Yallappagouda Patil S/o. Yallappagouda Patil R/at: Konnur Village, Nargunda Taluk, Gadag District- 582206

¶10

...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : Vijay. S Defendants : Exparte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been

¶15

filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act

¶16

OA 445/2025

¶17

¶18

1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate

¶19

Rs.26,68,020/- (Rupees twenty six lakh sixty eight thousand twenty 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 the defendants availed the Agricultural loan credit facilities of Rs.17,80,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakh eighty thousand only) from the applicant bank.

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with sanction letter, guarantee agreement and simple mortgage deed in favor of the applicant bank.

¶22

It is further contended that, the defendants despite 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

OA 445/2025

26.11.2025.

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶31

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶32

OA claim as against the defendants?

¶33

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶36

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 hypothecation and

¶37

OA 445/2025

¶38

¶39

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.

¶40

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence

¶41

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

¶45

In the result, OA.No.445/2025, stands allowed,

¶46

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶47

sum of Rs.26,68,020/- (Rupees twenty six lakh sixty eight thousand twenty only) with further interest @6% p.a. (Simple), from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants

¶48

jointly severally and personally after giving credit to all the

¶49

OA 445/2025

¶50

¶51

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.

¶52

(ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendants

¶53

jointly severally and personally and their other assets are liable

¶54

to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶55

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶59

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

¶60

in terms of this final order.

¶61

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶62

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

¶63

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶64

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27^th day of April, 2026].

¶65

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA 445/2025

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶70

AW-1: Sri. Hanumanthappa Sogihala, Branch Manager, of

¶71

Applicant Bank.

¶72

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶73

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	04.09.2021	Loan application
A2	29.10.2021	Loan sanction letter
A3	29.10.2021	Agreement for agricultural advances extended by D1
A4	29.10.2021	Guarantee agreement executed by D2
A5	29.10.2021	Simple mortgage deed executed by D1
A6	19.09.2024	Letter of revival executed by D1
A7	07.11.2024	Registered notice issued by applicant bank to defendants

¶74

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

¶75

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank v. Bhupendragouda Shivanagouda Saligoudar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank v. Bhupendragouda Shivanagouda Saligoudar

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

Union Bank of India versus S S T Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Bank of India versus Ms Box Well Industries

Bank of Maharashtra versus Chandrashekhar Pundlik Jagtap

Bank of Baroda versus Anushka Jain Proprietor Ms Ur Choice

Canara Bank versus Mr R Markondaiah

State Bank of India versus Kavitha. N