Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri K Venkata Rao

DRT27 Aug 2026OA/870/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed applicant bank’s summons-based application for recovery certificate regarding agricultural loans. Due to admitted defaults and ex parte proceedings, bank was permitted to recover principal and reduced interest from respondents jointly and from scheduled property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 41,71,426.83 with further interest @14.45% p.a. from respondents jointly and against schedule property.

Canara Bank versus Sri K Venkata Rao — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of August, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.870/2022

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank Manvi Branch, 1^st floor, Basava Complex, near Bus stand, Manvi, Raichur Dist. – 584 123

¶6

Through Its Chief Manager Mr. Ajeet Kumar …APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. K Venkata Rao S/o. Ramanna R/at: Gavibasaveshwara Camp, Gavigatti, Aldal Post, Manvi Taluk, Raichur Dist., Karnataka – 584 123

¶9

Smt. Mangayamma W/o. K Venkata Rao R/at: Gavibasaveshwara Camp, Gavigatti, Aldal Post, Manvi Taluk, Raichur Dist., Karnataka – 584 123

¶10

Sri. Veerabhadra Rao S/o. Govindaraj R/at: Gavigatta, Aldal Post, Manvi Taluk, Raichur Dist., Karnataka – 584 123 ...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for: Applicant : VS Associates Defendants : Ex parte

OA-870/2022

FINAL ORDER

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking for issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs 41,71,426.83/- (Rupees Forty-One Lakhs Seventy-One Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty-Six and Paisa Eighty-Three Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶16

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants are availed the credit facilities:

¶17

Agricultural loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only) for agricultural purpose.

¶18

Agricultural loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only).

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed the necessary loan documents along with mortgage deed.

¶20

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, 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 accounts as NPA.

¶21

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.

¶22

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to

¶23

OA-870/2022

¶24

¶25

appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 10.04.2026.

¶26

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-08 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

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.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

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

¶30

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains

¶33

unrebutted as defendants remained ex parte. 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,

¶34

creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount

¶35

due are also proved by the above document. The claim of the

¶36

applicant is well within the limitation.

¶37

OA-870/2022

¶38

¶39

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal

¶40

find both these issues are in favour of applicant and hence, this

¶41

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

¶42

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities is availed for Agricultural purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal is the view that the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

¶43

In the result, OA.No.1857/2024 stands allowed,

¶44

The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 41,71,426.83/- (Rupees Forty-One Lakhs Seventy-One Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty-Six and Paisa Eighty-Three Only) consisting of:

¶45

a. Rs. 28,45,060.91/- (Rupees Twenty-Eight Lakhs Forty-Five Thousand and Sixty and Paisa Ninety-One Only) with further interest @14.45% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants no. 1, 2 & 3.

¶46

b. Rs. 13,26,365.92/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Twenty-Six Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty-Five and Paisa Ninety-Two Only) with further interest @14.45% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants no. 1 & 2.

¶47

After giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during

¶48

OA-870/2022

¶49

¶50

the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against defendants jointly, severally and personally and

¶51

also by proceeding against schedule property. Properties schedule to

¶52

the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶53

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

¶54

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their assets are liable for all such

¶55

amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶56

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶57

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

¶58

receipt of the order.

¶59

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

¶60

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶61

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

¶62

terms of this final order.

¶63

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶64

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

¶65

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶66

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27^th Day of August, 2026].

¶67

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Sd/-

OA-870/2022

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶73

AW-1 Someshwar Bukya, S/o Amru, Officer, of Applicant Bank.

¶74

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶75

Exhi bits	Particulars
A1	Agreement for agricultural advances executed by defendant no.1 in favour of applicant bank
A2	Deed of guarantee for agricultural advances executed by defendant no.2 & 3 in favour of applicant bank dated 13.03.2007
A3	Agreement for agricultural advances executed by defendant no.1 in favour of applicant bank dated 27.02.2007
A4	Deed of guarantee for agricultural advances executed by defendant no.2 in favour of applicant bank dated 27.02.2007
A5	Mortgage deed dated 21.02.2007, 03.11.1995, 14.06.2000
A6	Legal/recall notice dated 25.05.2022
A7	True extract of statement of accounts pertaining to the defendant’s loan account 18098550002567
A8	True extract of statement of accounts pertaining to the defendant’s loan account 18098380013681

¶76

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶77

-Nil -

¶78

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶79

-Nil -

¶80

Sd/-

¶81

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Sri K Venkata Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri K Venkata Rao

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Shilpy

Bank of India versus Sh. Hardev Singh

Bank of India versus Amarjit Kaur

Santosh Kumari versus Central Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mokksh

Ms Tamanna Enterprises versus Indian Bank