Allowed

Canara Bank v. P Padmanabhan

DRT24 Jun 2026OA/848/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Canara Bank for issuance of Recovery Certificate against a defaulting borrower. The Tribunal admitted evidence uncontroverted due to respondent's absence, proved default in agricultural loans, and sanctioned recovery at 6% simple interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate to be drawn for aggregate sum of Rs. 40,96,395/- with 6% p.a. simple interest; recovery to proceed from schedule properties and personally against respondent.

Canara Bank versus P Padmanabhan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of June, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.848/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Canara Bank Branch Office at: Shahapur, Near New Bus Stand, Opp. TVS Showroom, Shahapur Taluk, Yadgiri District-585223. Represented by its Chief Manager and letter of Authority Holder, Mrs. Darshna Bhatt.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. P. Padmanabham S/o Sri. Suryarao, Aged about 53 years, R/o H. No. 12-80, Venkateshwaranagar, Shahapur, Shahapur Taluk, Yadgiri District-585223.

¶10

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶11

Applicant : K. Raveendran Defendants : Exparte

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

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 against the defendants for Rs. 40,96,395/- (Rupees Forty Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Five Only) with

¶14

further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶15

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants availed the following credit facilities from the applicant bank:-

¶16

I. Agricultural Term Loan of a sum of Rs. 3,80,000/-

¶17

II. KCCS Facility sum of Rs. 1,70,000/-

¶18

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with Letter of Authority, Memorandum of Agreement for Agricultural Loans, Letter of Revival, Agreement Deed of Hypothecation for Kisan Credit Card.

¶19

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, the defendant failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶20

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.

¶21

Despite, taking out summons the defendant failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 17.10.2025.

¶22

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-24 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶23

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.

¶24

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶25

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

¶26

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶27

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶28

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendant 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 Hypothecation and Mortgage as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. 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.

¶29

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶30

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶31

availed for agricultural purpose and also that the 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% (simple).

¶32

In the result, OA.No.848/2023, stands allowed,

¶33

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of

¶34

Rs.40,96,395/- (Rupees Forty Lakh Ninety Six Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Five only) consisting of:

¶35

a. Rs.32,91,575 /- with further interest of 6.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from the defendant towards Farm Development Loan.

¶36

b. Rs.8,04,820/- with further interest of 6.00% p.a.(simple) from the date

¶37

of filing OA till the realization from the defendant towards KCCS Loan to pay 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 respective the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶38

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the

¶39

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant personally and his assets are liable for the amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶40

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings which

¶41

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

¶42

order.

¶43

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

¶44

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶45

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

¶46

of this final order.

¶47

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms

¶48

of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure)

¶49

Rules, 1993.

¶50

[Dictated to the Stenographer (DV), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the

¶51

Open Court, this the 24^th Day of June, 2026].

¶52

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶53

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶54

ANNEXURES

¶55

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶56

AW-1: Mr. Manoranjan Behera, Chief Manager of the applicant Bank

¶57

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶58

Annexure	Date	List of Documents
	29.04.2023	Letter of Authority
A1	17.01.2006	Comprehensive Application- cum-Appraisal Report
		for Farm Development for Agricultural Credit
A2	18.01.2006	Letter Evidencing Deposit of Title Deeds
A3	--	Sanction Letter
A4	18.01.2006	Memorandum of Agreement for Agricultural Loans

¶59

A5	10.01.2008	Letter of revival
A6	05.01.2011	Letter of revival
A7	10.10.2013	Letter of revival
A8	09.09.2016	Letter of revival
A9	08.07.2019	Letter of revival
A10	31.03.2022	Letter of revival
A11	24.03.2023	Legal Notice
A12	14.11.2006	Common Application -cum-Appraisal Report for Kisan Credit Card Scheme
A13	14.11.2006	Sanction Memorandum
A14	14.11.2006	Agreement Deed of Hypothecation for kisan Credit Card
A15	22.06.2009	Letter of Revival
A16	07.12.2009	Letter of Revival
A17	07.11.2012	Letter of Revival
A18	15.06.2015	Letter of Revival
A19	10.06.2018	Letter of Revival
A20	04.05.2021	Letter of Revival
A21	24.03.2023	Legal Notice
A22	--	Statement of account in respect of Farm Development Loan account No. 0569883003733
A23	--	Statement of account in respect of KCCS Loan account No. 0569840004093 along with interest sheet and certificate

¶60

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

¶61

-Nil -

¶62

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. P Padmanabhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. P Padmanabhan

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