Allowed

Canara Bank v. Jogeshwara Rao

DRT27 Apr 2026OA/587/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Canara Bank for a recovery certificate. The court upheld the bank's claim for a produce loan default, holding evidence uncontroverted due to defendant absence, and awarded a reduced interest rate.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.35,93,804.62 with 6% p.a. simple interest, attachable to schedule properties.

Canara Bank versus Jogeshwara Rao — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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.587/2022

BETWEEN:

Canara Bank

Branch office at:

Maski, Basavan Gouda Building, New Bazaar, Maski, Raichur District- 584124

¶9

…APPLICANT

¶10

AND:

¶11

Mr. Jogeshwar Rao. G S/o. G Satyanarayana R/at: Tuggaladinni Camp Manvi Taluk,

¶12

Raichur District- 584120

¶13

M/s G. Satyanarayana Warehouse Represented by its Promoter

¶14

(a) Sri. G Satyanarayana S/o. Musalayya R/at: Yaddaladinni, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District- 584124

¶15

(a) Smt. Gudala Nagalaxmi W/o Late G. Satyanarayana

¶16

(b) Sri. Gudala Jogeshwar Rao S/o. Late G. Satyanarayana

¶17

(c). Sri. Gudala Gopalakrishna S/o Late G. Satyanarayana

¶18

OA 587/2022

¶19

¶20

All are R.at: Yaddaladinni Camp, Malapur Post, Maski Taluk, Raichur District- 585123

¶21

...DEFENDANTS

¶22

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶23

Applicant : K. Raveendran Defendants : Exparte

¶24

FINAL ORDER

¶25

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.35,93,804.62 (Rupees thirty five lakh ninety three thousand eight hundred four and paisa sixty two only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶26

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant No.1 as borrower and defendants No.2 & 3 as guarantor availed the Produce Loan credit facilities of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs only) from the applicant bank.

¶27

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan

¶28

OA 587/2022

¶29

¶30

documents along with letter of guarantee, simple mortgage deed, sanction memorandum in favor of the applicant bank.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 11.07.2023.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

OA 587/2022

¶37

¶38

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶39

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶40

OA claim as against the defendants?

¶41

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶42

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶43

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 facilities as stated in the OA, creation of hypothecation and 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.

¶44

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this

¶45

Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence

¶46

OA 587/2022

¶47

¶48

this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶49

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶50

are availed by defendants for agricultural purpose and also that

¶51

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).

¶52

In the result, OA.No.587/2022, stands allowed,

¶53

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶54

sum of Rs.35,93,804.62 (Rupees thirty five lakh ninety three thousand eight hundred four and paisa sixty two only) with further interest @6% p.a. (Simple),

¶55

from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants

¶56

jointly severally and personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA

¶57

and allowed the same to be recovered by proceedings against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the

¶58

schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶59

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

¶60

OA 587/2022

¶61

¶62

jointly severally and personally and their other assets are liable

¶63

to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶64

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶65

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

¶66

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

¶67

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶68

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

¶69

in terms of this final order.

¶70

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶71

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

¶72

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶73

[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].

¶74

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA 587/2022

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶79

AW-1: Mr. B Krishna, Asst. Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶80

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶81

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

¶82

The undersigned herewith produces copies of the following documents :-

¶83

Sl.	DOCUMENTS	Nos
No
1	Power of Attorney	______
2	Guarantee Agreement	Exhibit A1
3	Guarantee Covering Letter	Exhibit A2
4	Letter of Guarantor whenever limits are to be renewed	Exhibit A3
5	Agreement between the Warehouse / Cold Storage Unit and Bank	Exhibit A4
6	Simple Mortgage Deed	Exhibit A5
7	Application for loan on goods or documents of title to goods along with enclosures	Exhibit A6
8	Sanction Memorandum	Exhibit A7

¶84

OA 587/2022

¶85

¶86

9	Warehouse Receipt for Rs.31.50 Lakhs	Exhibit A8
10	Guarantee Agreement between defendant Nos. 1 & 3	Exhibit A9
11	Guarantee Covering Letter	Exhibit A10
12	Demand Notice issued by the Applicant Bank	Exhibit A11
13	Legal Notice	Exhibit A12
14	Letter of Revival	Exhibit A13
15	Statement of Account in respect of PL account No.0545844010680	Exhibit A14

¶87

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

¶88

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Jogeshwara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Jogeshwara Rao

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