CANARA BANK vs SRI.BASAVANNA on 30 April 2025

FINAL ORDER

1. 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 for Rs. 14,33,768/- (Rupees fourteen lakh thirty-three thousand seven hundred and sixty-eight only) with further interest thereon and cost from the Defendants.

2. It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendant No. 1 availed an agricultural loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakh only) for the purpose of purchasing tractor, trailer and accessories. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of Defendant No.1 Sri. Prabhuswamy. It is also stated that Defendant No.2 & 3 had along with 1st Defendant executed mortgage deed in favour of Applicant. Defendant No.2 died leaving behind the Defendant Nos. 2(a) to (c) as his legal heirs to inherit the estate.

3. It is also the case of the Applicant that, in view of the above loan, the Defendants jointly executed necessary loan documents including the hypothecation of movable properties and collateral security of the immovable properties.

4. It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendants, despite availing the credit facility, along with the Terms and Conditions for the loan, failed in complying with the same, resulting in defaults and consequentially turning the loan accounts as Non- Performing Asset (NPA).

5. 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.

6. Despite, service of summons on the Defendants, they failed to appear and hence were set exparte.

7. 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-3 to A-17, got the same marked in evidence.

8. 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.

9. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: i) Whether the Applicant succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the Defendants? ii) If so, to what extent?

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

10. 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 evidence put forth by the Applicant is found admissible and sufficient to prove the averments made in the OA, and the default committed by the Defendants in repaying the loan amount due. The liability of the Defendants and the loan amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

11. Hence in view of the above findings this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the OA is liable to be allowed.

12. Taking into consideration the fact that the loan is availed by the Defendants for agricultural purposes and also the fact that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 8.00% (simple).

13. In the result, TA.No.2035/2017, is allowed,

i) The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 14,33,768/- (Rupees fourteen lakh thirty three thousand seven hundred and sixty eight only) with pendente lite and future interest of 8% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the Defendants personally after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA if any, and allow the same to be recovered by proceeding against the defendants and also by proceeding against the schedule properties.

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to clear the loan amount due from defendants, the 1st Defendant personally liable and the Applicant bank is at liberty to procced against the other assets of the 1st Defendant for the recovery of the balance due amounts.

iii) The Applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings for which Applicant to file cost memo within seven days from the date of receipt of the order.

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. [Dictated to the Stenographer (PY), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 30th Day of April, 2025].

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

ANNEXURES WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK: AW-1: Ravi Kumar T, Manager, of Applicant Bank. Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

Exhibit Nos. Date Particulars of Documents A1 -- Applicant Evidence A2 -- List of Documents.

A3 16.05.2005 Loan Application submitted by the Defendant No.1 to the Applicant Bank. A4 16.05.2005 Memorandum of Agreement for Agricultural Loans in favour of the Applicant Bank. A5 & A6 23.09.2005 Certificate of Registration of the Tractor and Trailer A7 13.05.2005 Simple Mortgage Deed executed the Defendants in favour of the Applicant Bank. A8 to A13 -- Six number of RTC extracts of the Schedule ‘A’ Property A14 23.09.2005 Particulars of Vehicles hypothecated executed by the Defendant No.1 in favour of the Applicant Bank. A15 & A16 14.05.2008 04.01.2010 2 Nos. of Letter of Revivals executed by the Defendant No.1. A17 -- Certified Account Extract of the Defendant No.1 maintained by the Applicant Bank in its usual and ordinary course of business.

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

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER