Allowed

State Bank of India v. Udaykumar Govindan

DRT31 Dec 2025OA/148/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for a recovery certificate against borrowers and a guarantor for an unpaid housing loan. The court accepted un-rebutted evidence, confirmed the claim was within limitation, and ordered recovery of the principal sum plus pendent lite and future interest at 8% simple interest, permitting enforcement against mortgaged property and personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.74,19,117 with interest @8% p.a. (simple) recoverable from joint, several, and personal assets, including the mortgaged property.

State Bank of India versus Udaykumar Govindan — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE

¶2

Dated this 31^st Day of December, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH Hon’ble Presiding Officer

¶4

O.A.No.148 of 2024

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, No.11/90, 3^rd Floor, Opposite to Trust Well Hospital, JC Road, Bangalore – 560 002. Represented by its Chief Manager.

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Sri Uday Kumar Govindan, S/o.Sri Govindan, R/At : #1371, 3^rd Cross, 4^th B Main, Prakashnagar – 560 021.

¶9

Sri Kumar, S/o.Sri Srikantaiah.B., R/At : #13, Virupakshipura Hobali, Yelethotadahalii – 562 138.

¶10

Also R/At : No.193, 5^th Cross, GPR Layout, Hossur Electronic City, Bangalore. … Defendants. Counsel for Applicant : Smt.Malini Vinay. Defendants : Exparte. ……

¶11

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Application is filed under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for a sum of Rs.74,19,117/- together with further interest @9.35% and 2% penal interest compounded with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realisation together with costs from the defendants jointly and severally and by way of sale of schedule mentioned property.

¶14

The Applicant contends that the defendants approached the applicant bank for Housing loan of Rs.72,56,000/- and availed the same on 28.06.2022 by execution of necessary loan documents including Memorandum of Loan Agreement by 1^st defendant. The 1^st defendant has also mortgaged the schedule mentioned property by execution of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dt.14.09.2022 in favour of applicant. The 2^nd defendant guaranteed the due repayment of loan.

¶15

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶16

The Applicant further contends that after availing the aforesaid facility, the defendants failed to regularize the said loan and hence

¶17

¶18

the loan account of the defendants was classified as NPA. The applicant bank had issued legal notice dt.24.11.2023 calling upon the defendants for repayment of dues. Despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendants failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant to make the defendants to pay back the amount failed, forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶19

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 04.04.2025.

¶20

The Applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A6, got the same marked in evidence.

¶21

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶22

i) Whether the applicant succeeded in proving the OA claim as

¶23

against the Defendants?

¶24

ii)If so, to what extent?

¶25

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶26

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the OA claim. Hence the Applicant is

¶27

¶28

found to be entitled for the OA claim. The OA claim is made within

¶29

limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶30

Even though the 2^nd defendant did not execute any documents except he has put his signature in the arrangement letter, the 2^nd defendant is liable as he has signed in the arrangement letter, agreeing to stand as guarantor for the facility.

¶31

Since the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest with default interest and that the facilities are availed in respect of Housing Loan the pendent lite and future interest is awarded at simple rate that too at reduced rate of 8% p.a. (simple).

¶32

In view of the above

¶33

i) OA No.148 of 2024 stands allowed.

¶34

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.74,19,117/(Rupees Seventy Four Lakhs Nineteen Thousands One Hundred and Seventeen only) together with interest @8% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of OA till the date of 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 mentioned property. The

¶35

¶36

schedule to the OA to be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶37

iii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient to clear the liability, then the Defendants are personally and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against for realization of respective dues.

¶38

iv) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the Recovery Officer to enable recovery of the dues as per the above terms.

¶39

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

¶40

vi) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶41

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

¶42

of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶43

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31^st day of December, 2025)

¶44

Sd./- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶45

Applicant Witness:

¶46

AW1 –Ms.Jayalakshmi.M., Chief Manager, Applicant Bank.

¶47

¶48

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶49

Ext.A1 - Arrangement Letter dt.28.06.2022. Ext.A2 - Deed of Undertaking dt. 28.06.2022. Ext.A3 - Registered memorandum of deposit of title deeds dt.14.09.2022. Exts.A4 & A5 - Legal Notice dt.24.11.2023 with postal acknowledgement. Ext.A6 - Statement of Account along with Certificate.

¶50

Witness Examined for the Defendant:

¶51

NIL

¶52

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant :

¶53

NIL

¶54

Sd./-

¶55

(T. RAJESH)

¶56

PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Udaykumar Govindan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Udaykumar Govindan

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

Idbi Bank versus Sri.Ramesh. B. Gowda

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Ramraj Grewal

Canara Bank versus Mr. Bhanu Tiwari

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Sri.Bheemaraya. N. Bhosale

Mrs Praveena Pattanashetti versus Union Bank of India

Mr Mohammad Ali Saifuddin Navalgund versus Idbi Bank