Allowed

Canara Bank v. Yamuna

DRT24 Feb 2026OA/774/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application for a Recovery Certificate against legal heirs of a deceased borrower. Finding the claim unrebutted and admissible evidence sufficient, the court reduced interest to 6.00% p.a. and ordered recovery jointly and severally along with execution against schedule property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs.23,76,419/- with 6% simple interest p.a., recoverable jointly and severally from respondents and against schedule property.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of February, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

OA. No.774/2022

BETWEEN:

Canara Bank

Branch office at Kanakapura

¶8

Rep. by Manager Mr. Rajeshwar Kumar … APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Smt. Yamunabai W/o. Peeka Naik Resident of Manchanadoddi village, Kasabha Hobli, Ramanagar District

¶11

Sri. Papa Naik S/o. Peeka Naik

¶12

Resident of Manchanadoddi village, Kasabha Hobli, Ramanagar District

¶13

Sri. Longaraja Naik S/o. Peeka Naik

¶14

Resident of Manchanadoddi village, Kasabha Hobli, Ramanagar District

¶15

Sri. Mutha Naik S/o. Peeka Naik

¶16

Resident of Manchanadoddi village, Kasabha Hobli, Ramanagar District ...DEFENDANTS

¶17

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶18

Applicant : Sri. K. Vijendra Rao Defendants : Exparte

OA. No.774/2022

:FINAL ORDER:

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.23,76,419/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Four Hundred and Nineteen 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 late Peeka Naik the husband of 1^st defendant and father of defendant No.2 to 4 have availed a Farm Development loan of Rs.5,33,000/- for the purchase of Tractor and Trailor. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the legal heirs of late Peeka Naik.

¶24

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facility, the deceased borrower and defendant No.2 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 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 as NPA.

¶26

OA. No.774/2022

¶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 28.01.2025.

¶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 A19 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶31

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the

¶32

contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and proof affidavit.

¶33

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶34

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶35

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

¶40

evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and

¶41

OA. No.774/2022

¶42

¶43

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 defendant and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶44

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the

¶45

issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶46

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility 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%

¶47

p.a.(simple).

¶48

In the result, OA.No.774/2022 stands allowed,

¶49

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶50

of Rs.23,76,419/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakh Seventy Six Thousand Four Hundred and Nineteen only) with further interest of 6.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization

¶51

OA. No.774/2022

¶52

¶53

from the defendant No.2, 3 and 4 and the defendant No.1 to the extent of their inheritance of any estate from the deceased borrower Peeka Naik, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against defendant No.2, 3 and 4 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 defendant No.2,3 and 4 jointly, severally and personally and their other assets and the defendant No.1 to the extent of their inheritance of any estate from the deceased borrower Peeka Naik are liable for all such amounts due under the loan account.

¶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

OA. No.774/2022

¶58

¶59

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

¶60

with this Final Order.

¶61

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

¶62

in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of 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 24^th Day of February 2026].

¶64

ANNEXURES

¶65

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶66

AW-1: Ms. Priyanka Raj, Manager of the applicant bank.

¶67

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶68

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Date	Exhibit Number
1	Common application form NF 499 for credit facility for agricultural loans	31.05.2005	A1
2	Enclosure to application	31.05.2005	A2
3	Loan sanction letter	31.05.2005	A3
4	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans	31.05.2005	A4
5	Quotation issued by the Vinay Tractor Enterprises	-	A5

¶69

OA. No.774/2022

¶70

6	Certification of Reg No.23 issued byRT	istration form O	26.08.2005	A6
7	Certificate of Reg No.23 issued byRT	istration form O	26.08.2005	A7
8	Particulars of hypothecated	the security	20.06.2005	A8
9	Simple mortgage de	ed	31.05.2005	A9
10	Letter of Revival defendant	executed by	19.07.2007	A10
11	Letter of Revival defendant	executed by	04.05.2010	A11
12	Letter of Revival defendant	executed by	06.04.2013	A12
13	Letter of Revival defendant	executed by	06.04.2013	A13
14	Letter of Revival defendant	executed by	19.03.2016	A14
15	Letter of Revival defendant	executed by	11.03.2019	A15
16	Recall notice issued Naika	to late Peeka	14.07.2010	A16
17	Recall notice issued	to defendant	03.09.2011	A17
18	Statement of accou	nt	03.01.2022	A18
19	Certificate under Evidence Act	Banker’s Book	05.01.2022	A19

¶71

Canara Bank v. Yamuna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Yamuna

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 Mr Mohammad Akram S/O Mohammad Quasam

Samiran Roy versus Bank of Baroda

State Bank of India versus Hetali Roshan Fernandes

Ms Tulsi Mineral Water versus State Bank of India

Ms Rehana Enterprise and Anr. versus Bank of Baroda

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank versus Gunderao