Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. H B Gururaj

DRT19 Jun 2026OA/694/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application seeking a Recovery Certificate for an agricultural loan default. The application was heard exparte against absent defendants. The court approved a reduced interest rate of 6% p.a. and ordered recovery from joint and several liability and mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate to be drawn for Rs.34,57,174 plus 6% p.a. interest; recoverable from defendants jointly, severally, personally, and from schedule property.

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus H B Gururaj — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 19^th Day of June, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.694/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Karnataka Grameena Bank Periyapatna Branch

¶7

Periyapatna Taluk, Mysore District, Karnataka State, Rep. by its Branch Manager … APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. H.B. Gururaj

¶10

S/o. Sri. H.S. Boralinge Gowda, Major

¶11

Smt. Sharadamma

¶12

D/o. Sri. H.S. Boralinge Gowda, Major

¶13

Smt. H.B. Mamtha D/o. Sri. H.S. Boralinge Gowda, Major

¶14

Sri. D.S. Ananda S/o. Sri. H.S. Boralinge Gowda, Major

¶15

All are residents of

¶16

K. Hosalli Village, Kamalapura Post, Periyapatna Taluk, Mysore District-571102 ...DEFENDANTS

¶17

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶18

Applicant : Sri. T P Muthanna Defendants : Exparte

:FINAL ORDER:

OA. No.694/2023

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.34,57,174/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Four only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶23

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed KCC loan limit of Rs.7.00 lakhs on 02.02.2015; KGL limit of Rs.1.25 lakhs on 02.02.2015; KGL limit of Rs.5.00 lakhs on 02.02.2015 and Agri. personal loan of Rs.75,000/on 02.02.2015.

¶24

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

¶25

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 account as NPA.

¶26

OA. No.694/2023

¶27

¶28

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.

¶29

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 15.10.2025.

¶30

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 A32 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶31

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.

¶32

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants? ii) What order are to be passed?

¶33

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶34

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and

¶35

OA. No.694/2023

¶36

¶37

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 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. 11. 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.

¶38

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities were 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% p.a.(simple).

¶39

In the result, OA.No.694/2023 stands allowed,

¶40

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.34,57,174/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Four only) with further 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

¶41

OA. No.694/2023

¶42

¶43

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.

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶49

in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶50

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 19^th Day of June 2026].

¶51

OA. No.694/2023

¶52

¶53

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶54

ANNEXURES

¶55

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶56

AW-1: Sri. Ravindra B K, Branch Manager of the applicant bank.

¶57

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶58

Sl. No .	Description of D	ocuments		Exhibit Number
1	Original KCC loan 02.02.2015	application	dated	A1
2	Original KCC loan san 02.02.2015	ction letter	dated	A2
3	Original mortgage deed KCC loan dated 02.02.201	loan agreeme 5	nt for	A3
4	Original revival letter 30.03.2019 & 01.03.2022	dated 01.02	.2018,	A4, A5 & A6
5	Original ATLB loan 02.02.2015	application	dated	A7
6	Original ATLB loan san 02.02.2015	ction letter	dated	A8
7	Original mortgage deed 02.02.2015	agreement	dated	A9
8	Original revival letters 05.01.2018, 16.03.2022	dated 31.03	.2019,	A10 to A12
9	Original ATL/KGL loan 02.02.2015	application	dated	A13
10	Original ATL/KGL loan s 02.02.2015	anction letter	dated	A14
11	Original mortgage deed 02.02.2015	agreement	dated	A15
12	Original Revival letters 31.03.2019, 16.03.2022	dated 05.01	.2018,	A16 to A18
13	Original simple mortg 02.02.2015	age deed	dated	A19

¶59

OA. No.694/2023

¶60

¶61

14	Original personal 02.02.2015	loan application dated	A20
15	Original personal terms and conditio	loan sanction letter with ns dated 02.02.2015	A21
16	Original pronote, Loan agreement, dated 02.02.2015	DPN delivery letter, Per. Guarantee Agreement all	A22 to A24
17	Original letter of 31.03.2019, 01.03	revival dated 05.01.2018, .2022	A25 to A27
18	Office copy of leg with RPAD acknowl	al notice dated 19.02.2022 edgments	A28
19	True extract of fou	r loan extracts	A29 to A32

¶62

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. H B Gururaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. H B Gururaj

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

Ms D S Enterprise And Anr. versus Axis Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri Amal Roy And Anr.

Ved Parkash versus Cholamandalam investment and finance company limited

Indian Bank versus M/S Sai Automobiles

Bank of India versus M/s Vishnu Priya Enterprises

Badal Das and Anr. versus Aditya Birla Finance Limited and Anr.