Allowed

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Mariswamy

DRT24 Jun 2026OA/831/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's OA under Section 19 RDB Act, 1993 for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against defendants who were absent ex parte, reducing the interest rate to 6% p.a. as the loan was for agricultural purposes.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of a recovery certificate for Rs. 42,93,481.18 with interest at 6% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing till realization, recoverable from the defendants jointly, severally and personally.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of June, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.831/2025

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Karnataka Grameena Bank Pothnal, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District 584143 Respresented By Manager …APPLICANT

¶6

AND:

¶7

Sri. Mariswamy

¶8

S/o. Narasappa

¶9

Sri Gaddeppa S/o Narasappa

¶10

Both are R/at: Udbal Taluk,

¶11

Manvi Taluk Raichur District-584120 ...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Naveen Tao Defendants : Exparte

¶14

FINAL ORDER

¶15

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been

¶16

filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act

¶17

1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for

¶18

OA 831/2025

¶19

¶20

Rs.42,93,481.18/- (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Four Hundred Eighty One and Eighteen Paisa Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶21

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants no. 1 & 2 and deceased co. borrower Sri. Mudigowda, availed an agricultural loan.

¶22

I. Kisan Credit Card of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Ruppees Two Lakh Fifty Lakhs Only).

¶23

II. Agricultural loan of a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Ruppees Five Lakhs only).

¶24

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above

¶25

amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with simple mortgage deed.

¶26

It is further contended that, the defendants despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, failed in complying the same, resulting 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

The applicant bank filed memo stating that, the deceased borower Sri Mudigowda has no legal heirs. Hence, the name of

¶29

OA 831/2025

¶30

¶31

the deceased defendant had not included in the peresent OA and Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 08.09.2025

¶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 A-1 to A-25 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 the proof affidavit.

¶34

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶35

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶36

OA claim as against the defendants?

¶37

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶38

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶39

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶40

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

¶41

OA 831/2025

¶42

¶43

facilities as stated in the OA, creation of mortgage as claimed by

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶47

are availed by defendant for agricultural purpose and also that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate,

¶48

this Tribunal, in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest @6% p.a. (Simple).

¶49

In the result, OA.No.831/2025, stands allowed, i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶50

sum of Rs. Rs.42,93,481.18/- (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Ninety

¶51

Three Thousand Eighty One And Eighteen Paisa Only) with further interest @6% p.a. (Simple),from the date of filing OA till

¶52

the realization, from the defendants jointly serverally and personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and

¶53

OA 831/2025

¶54

¶55

received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same

¶56

to be recovered by proceedings against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶57

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

¶58

jointly servrally and personally and their other assets are liable

¶59

to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶60

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶61

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

¶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 (ms), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by

¶70

me in the Open Court, this the 24^th day of June, 2026].

¶71

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA 831/2025

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶76

AW-1: Govindaraju N, Senior Manager, of the Applicant Bank.

¶77

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶78

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	15.04.2009	Common application form cum appraisal report for credit facilities
A2	22.05.2009	Simple Motgage deed registered as documents no. MNV-1-00975-2009-10,at the office of sub- registrar Manvi.
A3	04.06.2009	Memorandum of agreement for corp loans
A4	18.04.2012	Letter of revival
A5	07.04.2015	Letter of revival
A6	31.01.2018	Letter of revival
A7	27.03.2020	Acknowledgement security/liability from mortgagors
A8	04.06.2020	Letter of revival
A9	06.05.2023	Letter of revival
A10	20.11.2006	Application form cum appraisal report for kisan od limits
A11	20.11.2009	Simple mortgage deed registered as document no. MNV-1-07304-2009-10, at the office of sub registrar, Manvi.
A12	30.11.2009	Agreement and deed for kisan OD
A13	30.11.2009	Request for argicultural overdraft facilities
A14	06.11.2012	Letter of revival
A15	19.09.2015	Letter of revival
A16	16.08.2018	Letter of revival
A17	27.03.2020	Acknowledgement security/liability from mortgagors
A18	14.06.2020	Letter of revival
A19& A20	14.06.2020	Two Letter of revival
A21	05.12.2024	Legal notice
A22	05.12.2024	Three postal receipts
A23		One postal cover returned unserved

¶79

OA 831/2025

¶80

¶81

A24 (old Bank Statement A/C No.10781130000631) New Bank Statement (A/C No.78115354054815)
A25 (Old Bank Statement A/C No.10781120000065) New Bank Statement (A/C No.78115355013713)
Witness Examined for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶82

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶83

Sd/-
(T. RAJESH)
PRESIDING OFFICER

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Mariswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Gramin Bank v. Mariswamy

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 Haja Majmudeen Abdul Razak

Union Bank of India versus M/s Pallavi Pharma

Ms Joysri Enterprises versus Indian Bank

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Haji Mohammad Sultan Sofi

Ellaquai Dehati Bank versus Ghulam Rasool Mir

Keshav Prasad Choubey versus Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Limited