Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ramdev Infotech

DRT30 Oct 2025OA/1939/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the bank for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against the borrowers for a principal sum of Rs. 76 lakhs, permitting recovery with reduced interest of 8% simple accruing from the filing date.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 76,39,362.00 plus 8% p.a. simple interest from filing date until realization.

State Bank of India versus Ramdev Infotech — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 30^th Day of October, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1939/2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

State Bank of India, Bangalore City Branch, No. 22, J.C. Road, Bangalore- 560002. Represented by its Assistant General Manager, Sri. Ashoo Saxena

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

M/s. Ramdev Infotech, Prop. Gawaram Purohit, 31, Ground Floor, No. 1094, SPA Plaza, Ulsoor Pet OTC Road, Bangalore- 560002.

¶10

Sri. Gowaram Purohit, S/o Prabhuji Purohit, 153/6, Kumbarpet Main Road, Near Dharmaya Temple, Gollarpet, Bangalore- 560002.

¶11

Also @: Sri. Gowaram Purohit, S/o. Prabhuji Purohit, 57/2, Lakhsman Kutir, 3^rd Floor, Shraddhanand Bhavan Road, Viswasapuram, Bangalore- 560004.

¶12

Also at: Gawaram Purohit, 127, Ugmana Vaas Ghasedi, Tehsil:- Bhinmal, District- Jalore, Rajasthan- 307803.

...DEFENDANTS

OA 1939/2023

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶17

Applicant : Lokesh Murthy G Defendants : Exparte

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

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 against the defendants for Rs. 76,39,362.00 (Rupees Seventy Six Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Two Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization. The 1^st defendant is a proprietorship firm represented by his proprietor the 2^nd defendant.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed CGTMSE scheme limit of Rs. 60.00 lakhs, common Covid-19 emergency credit line of Rs. 6.00 lakhs, GECL limit of Rs. 12.00 lakhs.

¶21

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with Copy of letter of arrangement and letter of arrangement.

¶22

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, the defendants failed in compliance of the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶23

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal

¶24

OA 1939/2023

¶25

¶26

by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

¶27

Despite, summons on the defendants they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 14.08.2024.

¶28

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-26 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶29

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.

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶31

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

¶32

as against the defendants?

¶33

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by

¶36

the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put

¶37

forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of the credit facilities as stated in the OA, creation of

¶38

OA 1939/2023

¶39

¶40

hypothecation as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶41

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, the Tribunal find

¶42

both these issues in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶43

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶44

availed for Business purpose and purchase of vehicle and also that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal

¶45

is of the view that the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 8.00% (simple).

¶46

In the result, OA.No.1939/2023, stands allowed,

¶47

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.

¶48

76,39,362.00 (Rupees Seventy Six Lakh Thirty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Two Only) with further interest @ 8.00 % p.a.(simple), from the date of filing OA till realization, from the defendants No. 1 & 2 jointly, severally & personally after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed to recover the same by proceeding against the defendants No. 1 & 2 jointly,

¶49

OA 1939/2023

¶50

¶51

severally & personally and against their assets including the hypothecated

¶52

assets. Schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶53

ii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings which

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

iv) Interim application pending, if any, are disposed of with this Final Order.

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

Rules, 1993.

¶60

[Dictated to the Stenographer (AJ), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 30^th Day of October, 2025].

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

(T. RAJESH)

¶63

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶64

ANNEXURES

¶65

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶66

AW-1:Nagaraja V S/o Sri. Nagappa, Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶67

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶68

Exhibit	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	Copy of sanction of credit facilities dated 19.02.2019
A2	Copy of letter of arrangement SME-1, dated 19.02.2019

¶69

OA 1939/2023

¶70

¶71

A3	Agreement of loan-cum-hypothecation- SME-2, dated 19.02.2019
A4	Copy of letter of arrangement, dated 12.06.020
A5	Copy of D.P Note and DP Noe delivery letter, dated 12.06.2020
A6	Copy of supplemental agreement of loan-cum-hypothecation dated 12.06.2020
A7	Copy of guarantee agreement dated 12.06.2020
A8 & A9	Copy of revival letter, balance confirmation letter dated 12.06.2020
A10 & A12	Copy of letter of arrangement, supplemental agreement of loan- cum-hypothecation guarantee agreement, all dated 2.06.2020
A13 to A16	Copy of sanction letter, letter of arrangement, supplemental agreement of loan-cum hypothecation and guarantee agreement all dated 19.11.2021
A17 to A20	Copy of loan application form dated 25.08.2022, letter of arrangement dated 25.08.2022, revival letter- SME-11 and balance confirmation letter both dated 25.08.2022
A21	Copy of search report of CERSAI dated 15.03.2019
A22 & A23	Copy of legal notice and RPAD postal receipt dated 09.05.2023
A24 to A26	Copy of 3 loan account statements

¶72

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

¶73

-Nil -

¶74

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶75

PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Ramdev Infotech

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ramdev Infotech

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus Kamaljit Singh

Ms General Trading Company versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Piara Singh

Ms R S Belvedere versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Ms Parwati Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. and others versus Bank of Baroda

Standard Chartered Bank versus M/s Nanma Marketing Pvt. Ltd.