Allowed

State Bank of India v. C Ramalingaiah

DRT29 Sept 2025OA/1/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application under Section 19 RDB Act for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against a defaulting borrower. The claim was unopposed due to the defendant's absence, resulting in an awarded recovery amount with reduced simple interest of 8.00% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Order allowing recovery of Rs.91,75,492/- with simple interest at 8.00% p.a. from the date of filing till realization, enforceable against the defendant personally and mortgaged assets.

State Bank of India versus C Ramalingaiah — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 29^th Day of September, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.01/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

State Bank of India Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 1/90, 3^rd Floor, Near Old Shivaji Theater, Opp: Trustwell Hospital, J.C. Road, Bangalore-560002, Represented by its chief Manager, Sri. Binoy Kumar Shrivastava … APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Sri. C. Ramalingaiah Aged about 52 years S/o. Sri. Chamaiah No.566, ‘Sai Krishna Paradise’ ABN Layout, Uttarahalli, Subramanyapura Post, Bengaluru – 560061

¶9

Also at: Flat No.202, 2^nd Floor, ‘Nandi Shelters’ No.53, 11^th Main, Jayanagar Housing Society Layout, Turahalli Village, Bangalore-560061 M/s. HCL Connect Ltd., C-2, Manyata Tech Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagavara, Bengaluru-560045

...DEFENDANT

OA. No.01/2024

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : Sri. T S Krishnamurthy Defendant : Exparte

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendant for Rs.91,75,492/- (Rupees Ninety One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Two only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶17

It is the case of the applicant that, the borrower availed the home loan of Rs.78,10,500/- for the purpose of purchase of flat on 09.03.2017.

¶18

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facility, the defendant executed necessary loan documents apart from the creation of security interest by way of mortgage over the Schedule property.

¶19

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan amount promptly and regularly, the defendant failed in complying the same, resulting in

¶20

OA. No.01/2024

¶21

¶22

default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan account as NPA.

¶23

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.

¶24

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, she failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 03.02.2025.

¶25

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed their Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A12 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶26

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.

¶27

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶28

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

¶29

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶30

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶31

OA. No.01/2024

¶32

¶33

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶34

remains unrebutted as defendant remained exparte. 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, as to the execution of loan documents as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendant and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶35

Hence in view of the above finding which cover both the

¶36

issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶37

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility

¶38

was availed for housing purpose and also that OA claim is arrived

¶39

at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 8.00%

(simple).

OA. No.01/2024

13. In the result, OA.No.01/2024 stands allowed,

¶44

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.91,75,492/- (Rupees Ninety One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Two only) with further interest of 8.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from defendant, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the defendant personally and the assets of the defendant, including the schedule property are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts. The schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶45

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

¶46

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant personally and her other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan account.

¶47

ii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

OA. No.01/2024

¶51

¶52

14. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶53

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

¶54

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶55

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 29^th Day of September 2025].

¶56

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶57

ANNEXURES

¶58

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶59

AW-1: Mr. Rajendra S, chief Manager of the applicant bank.

¶60

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶61

Annexure	Particulars
A1	Loan application dated 18.02.2017 of the defendant
A2	Sanction communication/arrangement letter dated 09.03.2017
A3	Memorandum of loan agreement dated 09.03.2017
A4	Deed of Undertakings dated 09.03.2017
A5	Affidavit along with covering letter dated 09.03.2017
A6	CIBIL letter dated 09.03.2017
A7	Agreement to mortgage dated 28.01.2022

¶62

OA. No.01/2024

¶63

¶64

A8	Registered memorandum relating to deposit of title deeds dated 16.03.2017
A9	Operational letter dated 09.03.2017
A10	Demand notice dated 20.09.2022 issued under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.
A11	Certified statement of account in respect of term loan account along with certificate
A12	Certified statement of account in respect of SBI Housing insurance loan account along with certificate

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. C Ramalingaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. C Ramalingaiah

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 Raghavendra

Indian Bank versus Gowramma

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Mallikarjuna

Hdfc Bank versus Ram Lubhaya

Punjab National Bank versus Balwinder Singh

Karnataka Gramin Bank versus Sri Basavaraj