Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Thimmanna and Another

DRT2 Feb 2026OA/701/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's Original Application under Section 19 of the RDB Act. The defendants failed to appear, and the claim was proven via documentary evidence of loan defaults. The Recovery Certificate for the due amount with reduced interest was issued.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate for Rs. 20,55,633.05 plus 6% simple interest from filing date allowed for enforcement against defendants and their properties.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 2^th Day of February, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.701/2024

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Karnataka Grameena Bank Branch office at: Gubbi Branch, Near Court, B.H. Road, Gubbi, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. Thimmanna S/o. Late Rangaiah

¶9

Sri. T. Prakash S/o. Thimmanna

¶10

Both are R/at: Thorehalli Village, Madenahalli Post, Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District

¶11

...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Mohamed Afroze Ahamed Defendants : Exparte

OA 701/2024

FINAL ORDER

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 Rs.20,55,633.05 (Rupees twenty lakh fifty five thousand six hundred thirty three and paisa five 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 defendants availed the following credit facilities from the applicant bank:-

¶19

I. KCC Loan of a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two lakh seventy five thousand Only) and

¶20

II. ATL loan limit of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakh Only).

¶21

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

¶22

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

OA 701/2024

accounts 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.

¶27

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 23.10.2024.

¶28

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-18 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶29

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.

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the defendants?

¶31

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶32

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶33

OA 701/2024

¶34

¶35

10. The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶36

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 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.

¶37

11. Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this

¶38

Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence

¶39

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

¶40

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶41

are availed by defendants for agricultural purpose and also that

¶42

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).

¶43

OA 701/2024

¶44

¶45

In the result, OA.No.701/2024, stands allowed,

¶46

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶47

sum of Rs.20,55,633.05 (Rupees twenty lakh fifty five thousand

¶48

six hundred thirty three and paisa five only) with further interest @6% p.a. (Simple),

¶49

from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly severally and personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceedings against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶50

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

¶51

jointly severally and personally and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶52

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶56

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

¶57

OA 701/2024

¶58

¶59

in terms of this final order.

¶60

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

¶62

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶63

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 2^nd day of February, 2026].

¶64

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶65

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶66

ANNEXURES

¶67

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶68

AW-1: Ambika R, Branch Manager, of the Applicant Bank.

¶69

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶70

Exhibit Nos.	Date	P	articulars of Documents
A1	24.02.2012	Loan appl translation	ication for KCC loan with English
A2	24.02.2012	Sanction le	tter
A3	24.02.2012	Mortgage translation	deed agreement with English
A4	12.08.2010	Registered translation	mortgage deed with English
A5	13.02.2012	Registered Translation	mortgage deed with English
A6	31.03.2019	Agreemen	t to repay time barred debts
A7	08.03.2022	Letter of r	evival
A8	10.01.2024	Legal notic	e
A9	16.07.2013	Loan appl Translation	ication for ATL loan with English
A10	16.07.2013	Terms, re letter with	gulations and sanction intimation English translation

¶71

OA 701/2024

¶72

¶73

A11	16.07.2013	Mortgage deed agreement with translation	English
A12	15.07.2013	Registered mortgage deed with translation	English
A13	16.07.2013	Appraisal cum assessment form
A14	31.03.2019	Agreement to repay time barred debt	s
A15	18.03.2022	Letter of revival
A16	10.01.2024	Legal notice
A17		Statement of Account in KCC loan No.42169354016921 (Old A.c 85004044511, 12169130000211)	in A/c No.
A18		Statement of Account in ATL loan in 42169326001113 (Old A/c No.850128	A/c No 96668)

¶74

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

¶75

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Thimmanna and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Thimmanna and Another

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

State Bank of India versus Braj Mohan Sharma

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus M/S Bhole Crain Services, through Its, Proprietor- Shri Parash Ram Sharma

Punjab National Bank versus Manish Kumar Pandey

Rafiqul Alam And Anr. versus Canara Bank

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ms Shri Hari Industries

State Bank of India versus Sh. Nirmal Singh