Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Siddalingamma

DRT27 Apr 2026OA/569/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by Karnataka Grameena Bank for a recovery certificate against two defendants. The court upheld the claim of Rs. 38,17,516 based on unopposed evidence, awarded a reduced interest rate of 6% p.a., and authorized recovery from specified properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate drawn for Rs. 38,17,516 with 6% p.a. simple interest from filing date, recoverable from schedule properties and defendants' assets.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of April, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.569/2025

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Karnataka Grameena Bank Head office at: Udbal, Bellary Branch office at: Udbal, Maski Taluk, Raichur district – 584 128 Karnataka state

¶6

Rep. by its Branch manager Mr. Dhagudu Paramesh …APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Smt. Siddalingamma W/o. Sri. Mallappa Aged about 77 years R/at: House Udbal Village, Maski taluk, Raichur district – 584 128

¶9

2.Sri. Neelakantappa S/o. Sri. Amarappa Aged about 74 years R/at: House Udbal Village, Maski taluk, Raichur district – 584 128 ...DEFENDANTS

¶10

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶11

Applicant : K Raveendran Defendants : Ex parte

OA-569/2025

FINAL ORDER

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 38,17,516/- (Rupees Thirty-Eight Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred and Sixteen Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶16

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

¶17

ATL of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) for purpose of crop cultivation/agricultural activities.

¶18

KCC loan of Rs. 6,40,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only) for purpose of raising crops.

¶19

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 Registered mortgage deed.

¶20

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 repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶21

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.

¶22

OA-569/2025

¶23

¶24

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 09.04.2026.

¶25

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-23 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶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 defendants?

¶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 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,

¶32

creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the

¶33

accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above document. The claim of the

¶34

OA-569/2025

¶35

¶36

applicant is well within the limitation.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities 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).

¶40

In the result, OA.No.569/2025 stands allowed,

¶41

The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 38,17,516/- (Rupees Thirty-Eight Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred and Sixteen 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.

¶42

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally personally and their assets are liable for all such

¶43

OA-569/2025

¶44

¶45

amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶46

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶47

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

¶48

receipt of the order.

¶49

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

¶50

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶51

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

¶52

terms of this final order.

¶53

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶54

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

¶55

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶56

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

¶57

the Open Court, this the 27^th Day of April, 2026].

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

(T. RAJESH)

¶60

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶61

ANNEXURES

¶62

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶63

AW-1 Mr. Dhagudu Paramesh, S/o. Mr. D Yellappa, Branch Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶64

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶65

Exhibit	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	Application form cum Appraisal report for Agricultural Term Loans dated 08.04.2015
A2	Particulars of Co-obligant/ Guarantor dated 08.04.2015

¶66

OA-569/2025

¶67

¶68

A3	Loan Sanction Memorandum Letter dated 28.04.2015
A4	Registered Simple Mortgage Deed dated 30.06.2015
A5	Pronote along with Take Delivery Letter to DPN dated 17.07.2015
A6	Memorandum of Agreement for Agricultural Loans dated 17.07.2015
A7	Letter of Revival dated 13.04.2018
A8	Letter of Revival dated 08.04.2021
A9	Letter of Revival dated 22.03.2024
A10	Legal Notice dated 24.12.2024
A11	Application form cum Appraisal report for PKCC dated 18.02.2016
A12	Particulars of Co-obligant/ Guarantor dated 18.02.2016
A13	Loan Sanction Conveying Letter dated 18.02.2016
A14	Registered Simple Mortgage Deed for KCC/OD facility to Agriculturists dated 18.02.2016
A15	Memorandum of Agreement for Agricultural Loans dated 18.02.2016
A16	Request for Agricultural Overdraft Facilities/ Kisan Credit Card dated 18.02.2016
A17	Undertaking Letter from the Borrower dated 18.02.2016
A18	Letter of Revival dated 10.01.2019
A19	Letter of Revival dated 03.12.2021
A20	Letter of Revival dated 06.08.2024
A21	Legal Notice dated 24.12.2024
A22	Statement of Account in respect of ATL/PSAL Loan A/c No. 85115315012715
A23	Statement of Account in respect of KCC Loan A/c. No. 85115354004318 along with interest sheet & certificate
Witness	Examined for the Defendants: -Nil -
List of D	ocuments Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil -

¶69

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶70

Sd/-

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Siddalingamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Siddalingamma

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