Allowed

Canara Bank v. K Ravikumar

DRT30 Jan 2026OA/669/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's Original Application for a Recovery Certificate. Despite defendants appearing ex parte, the Tribunal found the bank's evidence of loan availing, default, and security creation sufficient. It awarded recovery of principal plus interest reduced to 6% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate for Rs. 1,47,38,458/- with 6% p.a. simple interest; recovery from respondents jointly and severally and against mortgaged property.

Canara Bank versus K Ravikumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 30^th Day of January, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA. No.669/2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Canara Bank Shorapur Branch Opposite Government Hospital Tehsil Road, Shorapur,

¶8

Yadgir – 585224

¶9

Rep.by its Chief Manager Sri. Swatantra Kumar Shukla

¶10

… APPLICANT

¶11

AND:

¶12

Sri. K. Ravikumar S/o. K Nageshwar Rao Aged about 39 years

¶13

Sri. T Mohan Nagendra Prasad S/o. Abbi Raju

¶14

Aged about 44 years

¶15

Smt. Pavani W/o. Mohan Nagendra Aged about 32 years

¶16

Smt. Balakumari W/o. Vijay Bhaskar T Aged about 41 years

¶17

All are R/at: Bapugouda Nagar, Shorapur, Yadgiri-585223 ...DEFENDANTS

¶18

OA. No.669/2024

¶19

¶20

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶21

Applicant : Sri. C Vinay Swamy Defendants : Exparte

¶22

:FINAL ORDER:

¶23

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.1,47,38,458/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Seven Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Eight only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶24

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed Minor Irrigation loan of Rs.63,00,000/- on 10.06.2015.

¶25

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facility, the defendants executed necessary loan documents. Apart from the creation of security interest by way of mortgage over the Schedule property.

¶26

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 account

OA. No.669/2024

as NPA.

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 exparte on 27.03.2025.

¶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 A1 to A11 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

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶35

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

¶36

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶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

¶40

OA. No.669/2024

¶41

¶42

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 security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶43

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶44

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility

¶45

was availed for agricultural purpose and also that 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 of 6.00%

¶46

p.a.(simple).

¶47

In the result, OA.No.669/2024 stands allowed,

¶48

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶49

of Rs.1,47,38,458/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Seven Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Eight only) with further

¶50

OA. No.669/2024

¶51

¶52

interest of 6.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from the defendants, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA

¶53

and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against defendants jointly, severally and personally and also by proceeding against the schedule property. The schedule property to the OA be the schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶54

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

¶55

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶56

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶57

v) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of with this Final Order.

¶58

OA. No.669/2024

¶59

¶60

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

¶61

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

¶62

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶63

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 30^th Day of January 2026].

¶64

ANNEXURES

¶65

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶66

AW-1: K. Ravi Theja, Assistant Manager of the applicant bank.

¶67

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶68

Sl. No	Particulars	Date of Documents	Exhibits
1.	Application form	10.06.2015	A 1
2.	Sanction Memorandum by applicant	10.06.2015	A 2
3.	Sanction co98mmunication acknowledged by defendants	15.06.2015	A 3
4.	Memorandum of agreement by defendants	15.06.2015	A 4
5.	Letter of revival by defendants	01.01.2018	A 5
6.	Letter of revival by defendants	28.12.2020	A 6
7.	Letter of revival by defendants	14.09.2023	A 7
8.	Legal notice	10.09.2023	A 8
9.	Request Letter from defendants	21.12.2023	A 9

¶69

OA. No.669/2024

¶70

¶71

10.	Statements of accounts		A 10
11.	Certified copy of Registered	05.06.2015	A 11
	Simple Mortgage deed

¶72

Sd/-

¶73

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. K Ravikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. K Ravikumar

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

S Rajeswari versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Kishan Mitrapal Chawla Dairy

Bank of India versus Ms Narmada Pipes

Ms Khajuria Constructions and Another versus State Bank of India

Raj Kumar Baniya versus State Bank of India

Smt Firoja Begum versus Indian Bank