Allowed

Canara Bank v. Chowdappa

DRT27 Mar 2026OA/999/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against two defendants who availed an agricultural loan. Finding the case unrebutted due to ex parte proceedings, the Court upheld the debt claim but reduced interest to 6% simple p.a. and allowed recovery against assets and personally.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate allowed for aggregate sum of Rs. 31,73,070/- with further interest @6% p.a. simple till realization, recoverable from defendants personally and against schedule properties.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of March, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.999/2024

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

Canara Bank Head office at: No.112, JC road, Bangalore – 560 002 Branch office at: Dasarahosahalli Branch, Dasarahosahalli – 563 115 Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District

¶6

Represented by its Senior Manger Sri. T Narayana Murthy …APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. Chowdappa S/o. Erappa Aged about 77 years Residing at: Siddanahalli Village, Byrakur Post, Mulagabal Taluk, Kolar district – 563 131

¶9

Smt. Lakshmidevamma S/o. Subbarayappa Aged about 48 years Residing at: Siddanahalli Village, Byrakur Post, Mulagabal Taluk, Kolar district – 563 131 ...DEFENDANTS

¶10

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶11

Applicant : V Haridas Bhat Defendants : Ex parte

OA-999/2024

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. 31,73,070/- (Rupees Thirty-One Lakhs Seventy-Three Thousand and Seventy 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 an agricultural term loan of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) for purchase of cows, construction of a cow shed and for establishing a dairy.

¶17

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

¶18

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 accounts as NPA.

¶19

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.

¶20

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 27.11.2025.

¶21

OA-999/2024

¶22

¶23

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-10 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶24

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.

¶25

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶26

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA

¶27

claim as against the defendants?

¶28

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶29

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶30

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains 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 facility as stated in the OA, creation of the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount

¶31

due are also proved by the above document. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶32

OA-999/2024

¶33

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility is

¶38

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).

¶39

In the result, OA.No.999/2024 stands allowed,

¶40

The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 31,73,070/- (Rupees Thirty-One Lakhs Seventy-Three Thousand and Seventy Only) with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally and personally, 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 the schedule properties. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

OA-999/2024

¶44

¶45

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶46

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

¶47

receipt of the order.

¶48

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

¶49

and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶50

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

¶51

terms of this final order.

¶52

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶53

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

¶54

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶55

[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 March, 2026].

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶58

ANNEXURES

¶59

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶60

AW-1 Sourabh Kumar, S/o. Sushil Kumar, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶61

OA-999/2024

¶62

¶63

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶64

Exhibit	date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	27.01.2023	Loan application submitted by the 1^stdefendant
A2	27.01.2023	Loan sanction letter
A3	27.01.2023	Memorandum of agreement for agricultural loans executed by the 1^stdefendant
A4	27.01.2023	On demand promissory note for Rs. 30,00,000/- executed by the 1^stdefendant
A5	27.01.2023	Letter of undertaking executed by the 1^st defendant
A6	27.01.2023	Guarantee covering letter executed by the 2^nd defendant
A7	27.01.2023	Guarantee agreement executed by the 2^nd defendant
A8	18.01.2023	Mortgage deed executed by the 1^stdefendant, registered in the office of the sub-registrar, Mulabagal as document no. MBL-1-05862/2022- 23 and stored in C D no. MBLD1283
A9	11.02.2024	Legal notice got issued by the applicant bank to defendants
A10	--------	Statement of account in respect of agricultural loan account no. 182001270658

¶65

Witness Examined for the Defendants: List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

-Nil -

-Nil -

Sd/-

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Canara Bank v. Chowdappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Chowdappa

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 Rajendrakumar Jain

Inno Infra Pvt. Ltd. and 9 Others versus Indian Overseas Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Rajdeepsinh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Sher Singh

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Smt. Jaswinder Kaur

Hdfc Bank versus Ms Bandhav Filling Centre