Allowed

Canara Bank v. Shankaregowda

DRT27 Apr 2026OA/86/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the recovery certificate application by Canara Bank against respondents for defaulted loan accounts. It accepted documentary evidence proving loan availment, creation of security/mortgage, and defaults. Debt of approx 25 lakh rupees with interest was adjudged due.

What did the court decide?

The applicant allowed to recover Rs. 25,60,325.86 with further interest @ 11.95% p.a. from the date of OA filing; Recovery Certificate transferred to Recovery for execution against jointly and several

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of April, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

OA.No.86/2025

BETWEEN:

Canara Bank

Ramanagara Main Branch Ramanagar District Karnataka- 562159

¶8

…APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Mr. A.R Shankaregowda S/o. Ramegowda Having address at: At Post: Anedoddi Village, Hosakere Dakle, Koppa Hobli, Maddur Taluk, District Mandya- 571419

¶11

Mr. Ramegowda S/o. Timmegowda Having address at: At Post: Anedoddi Village, Hosakere Dakle, Koppa Hobli, Maddur Taluk, District Mandya- 571419

¶12

Smt. Shashikala W/o. Ramegowda Having address at: At Post: Anedoddi Village, Hosakere Dakle, Koppa Hobli, Maddur Taluk, District Mandya- 571419

¶13

Smt. Shakunthala W/o. Ramegowda Having address at:

¶14

OA 86/2025

¶15

¶16

At Post: Anedoddi Village, Hosakere Dakle, Koppa Hobli, Maddur Taluk, District Mandya- 571419

¶17

...DEFENDANTS

¶18

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶19

Applicant : Soundarya Nilaya Defendants : Exparte

¶20

FINAL ORDER

¶21

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.25,60,325.86 (Rupees twenty five lakh sixty thousand three hundred twenty five and paisa eighty six only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶22

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant No.1 is the borrower and defendants No.2 to 4 as guarantor availed the Cash credit facilities of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh only) from the applicant bank.

¶23

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with memorandum of agreement, sanction letter and memorandum of deposit in favor of the applicant bank.

¶24

OA 86/2025

¶25

¶26

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 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

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 20.11.2025.

¶29

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-8 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶30

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.

¶31

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶32

OA 86/2025

¶33

¶34

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶35

OA 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 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.

¶39

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.

¶40

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶41

are availed by defendant for Cash credit purpose, this Tribunal

¶42

OA 86/2025

¶43

¶44

in view of the rate of interest as claimed need not be reduced.

¶45

However as the OA Claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate and also by applying default interest, the prayer for monthly rest and future penal interest are declined.

¶46

In the result, OA.No.86/2025, stands allowed,

¶47

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 25,60,325.86 (Rupees twenty five lakh sixty thousand three hundred twenty five and paisa eighty six only) with further interest @ 11.95% p.a. (Simple),

¶48

from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants

¶49

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

¶50

the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶54

OA 86/2025

¶55

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶59

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

¶60

in terms of this final order.

¶61

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

¶63

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶64

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27^th day of April, 2026].

¶65

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶66

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶67

ANNEXURES

¶68

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶69

AW-1: Jayalakshmi. M, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶70

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶71

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

¶72

Sr.No.	Particulars	Exhibit
1	Sanction letter dated 03.03.2022	A-1
2	Memorandum of Agreement dated 04.03.2022	A-2

¶73

OA 86/2025

¶74

¶75

3	Guarantee 03.03.2022 No.2	Agreement dated executed by Defendant	A-3
4	Guarantee 03.03.2022 No.3	Agreement dated executed by Defendant	A-4
5	Guarantee 03.03.2022 No.4	Agreement dated executed by Defendant	A-5
6	Memorandu Deeds dated	m of Deposit of Title 25.02.2022	A-6
7	Notice dated	26.10.2024	A-7
8	True Extra Accounts Defendants Accounts No	ct of Statement of pertaining to the ’ aforesaid Loan .182000544894	A-8
9	Certificate banker’s boo	under section 2a of k evidence act, 1891.

¶76

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

¶77

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Shankaregowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Shankaregowda

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 S S T Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Bank of India versus Ms Box Well Industries

Bank of Maharashtra versus Chandrashekhar Pundlik Jagtap

Bank of Baroda versus Anushka Jain Proprietor Ms Ur Choice

Canara Bank versus Mr R Markondaiah

State Bank of India versus Kavitha. N