Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Nagesh

DRT29 May 2026OA/618/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application under Section 19 of the RDB Act. Being ex-parte, the court accepted the bank's evidence proving loan availed, defaults, and mortgage. A recovery certificate was issued with interest reduced to 6% p.a. for the agricultural purpose.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs.31,76,676/- plus 6% p.a. interest from filing date till realization, recoverable from schedule property and personal assets jointly and severally.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 08^th Day of May, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.618/2025

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Karnataka Grameena Bank Yerigera Road Branch, ABID complex, Tank Bund Road, Raichur Taluk & District Karnataka State- 584133

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. Nagesh S/o. Sri. Vasurappa, R/at: Kuknoor Village, Raichur Taluk and District- 584134

¶9

Sri. Raju S/o Vasurappa Kuknoor Village, Raichur Taluk and District- 584134

¶10

...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : G. Lokesh Murthy G. Srinivasan Defendants : Exparte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been

¶15

OA 618/2025

¶16

¶17

filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.31,76,676/- (Rupees thirty one lakh seventy six thousand six hundred seventy six only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant No.1 as the borrower and defendant No.2 as the co-obligant availed the following credit facilities from the applicant bank:-

¶19

I. KCC Loan of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only),

¶20

II. Term loan limit of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh Only), and

¶21

III. FML Loan limit of Rs.5,35,000/- (Rupees five lakh thirty five thousand Only)

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

OA 618/2025

¶25

¶26

in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶27

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.

¶28

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 27.04.2026.

¶29

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-33 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶30

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.

¶31

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶32

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶33

OA claim as against the defendants?

¶34

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶35

OA 618/2025

¶36

¶37

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶38

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶39

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

¶41

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶42

are availed by defendants for agricultural purpose and term loan purpose and also that OA claim is arrived at by calculating

¶43

OA 618/2025

¶44

¶45

interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal, in view of the OA can

¶46

be allowed with a reduced interest @6% p.a. (Simple).

¶47

In the result, OA.No.618/2025, stands allowed,

¶48

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶49

sum of Rs.31,76,676/- (Rupees thirty one lakh seventy six

¶50

thousand six hundred seventy six only) with further interest @6% p.a. (Simple),

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

and allowed the same to be recovered by proceedings against

¶54

the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶55

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

¶56

jointly severally and personally and their other assets are liable

¶57

to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶58

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶59

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

¶60

OA 618/2025

¶61

¶62

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

¶63

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶64

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

¶65

in terms of this final order.

¶66

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶67

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

¶68

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶69

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 8^th day of May, 2026].

¶70

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶71

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶72

ANNEXURES

¶73

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶74

AW-1: Adiki Balaraju, Branch Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶75

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶76

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	30.08.2013	Original Acc crop loan application with co- obligant letter
A2 & A3	10.09.2013 30.08.2013	Original memo of agreement for agri loans
A4& A7	22.07.2016 17.10.2018 25.11.2020 07.10.2023	Letter of revival
A8	31.12.2013	Original KCC-OD loan application with co- obligant letter

¶77

OA 618/2025

¶78

¶79

A9 & A12	31.12.2013 31.12.2013 04.12.2013	Original loan sanction conveying letter request for agricultural OD-KCC Memo of agreement for Agri loans , simple mortgage deed
A13 to A17	12.07.2016 17.10.2018 25.11.2020 07.10.2023	Original letter of revival
A18 to A20	01.03.2014 04.02.2014	Original FML loan application with co-obligant letter
A21 to A24	22.03.2014 14.03.2014 19.03.2014 20.08.2015	Loan sanction letter, memo of agreement, mortgage deed
A25 to A27	20.03.2017 12.11.2019 25.11.2022	Original letter of revival
A28 to A30	16.05.2024	Office copy of 3 legal notices account wise
A31 to A33		True extract of statement of 3 loan accounts

¶80

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

¶81

-Nil -

¶82

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶83

PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Nagesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Nagesh

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

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Aby Abraham

RRaju Kalidoss versus Canara Bank

Sajan S versus Yes Bank

Vinod Kumar Gupta versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Marvel Metals Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Mr B S Girisha versus Dcb Bank Limited