Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Yallappa Sannamudiyappa Penti

DRT19 Jun 2025OA/386/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Recovery Certificate application filed by State Bank of India against three defendants who defaulted on agricultural and KCC loans. A recovery of Rs. 31.78 lakhs plus interest at 8% p.a. was granted, and the certificate was to be transferred for execution.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 31,78,300 plus interest at 8% p.a. from the date of filing; recovery from schedule property and other assets permitted.

State Bank of India versus Sri Yallappa Sannamudiyappa Penti — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 19^th Day of June, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.386/2022

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

State Bank of India, Assets Recovery Management Branch Bangalore …APPLICANT

¶6

AND:

¶7

Sri. Yallappa S/o. Sanna Mudiyappa Penti

¶8

Sri. Shivarayappa Mudiyappa Penti S/o. Sanna Mudiyappa Penti

¶9

Sri. Bhirappa S/o. Sanna Mudiyappa Penti

¶10

All are R/at #64, M. Timmarpur Village, Ramadurga Taluq, Belagavi-591123 ...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : G.N Satyamurthy Defendants : Exparte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been

¶15

filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act

¶16

1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.31,78,300/-

¶17

OA 386/2022

¶18

¶19

(Rupees thirty one lakh seventy eight thousand three hundred only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶20

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants availed the following credit facilities from the erstwhile State Bank of Mysore which later got amalgamated with State Bank of India :-

¶21

I. Agriculture Term Loan of a sum of Rs. 5,70,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Seventy Thousand Only),

¶22

II. KCC loan limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh Only) which were later rephrased from time to time.

¶23

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with hypothecation agreement and registered deed of mortgage in favor of the applicant bank.

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

OA 386/2022

¶27

¶28

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 22.02.2023.

¶29

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 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶30

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.

¶31

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶32

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶33

OA claim as against the defendant?

¶34

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶35

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶36

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶37

remains unrebutted as defendant remained exparte. The

¶38

evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and

¶39

undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found

¶40

admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of credit

¶41

OA 386/2022

¶42

¶43

facilities as stated in the OA, creation of hypothecation as

¶44

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

¶45

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this

¶46

Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence

¶47

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

¶48

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶49

are availed by defendants for agricultural purpose and also that

¶50

OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate,

¶51

this Tribunal, in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest @8% p.a.

¶52

In the result, OA.No.386/2022, stands allowed,

¶53

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶54

sum of Rs.31,78,300/- (Rupees thirty one lakh seventy eight thousand three hundred only)with future interest @8% p.a.

¶55

(Simple)

¶56

from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants

¶57

OA 386/2022

¶58

¶59

personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceedings against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶60

(ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendants personally and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶61

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶62

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

¶63

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

¶64

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶65

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

¶66

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶67

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

¶68

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 19^th day of June, 2025].

¶69

PRESIDING OFFICER

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

OA 386/2022

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶75

AW-1: Selvarani, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶76

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶77

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	--	Applicant Evidence
A2	--	List of Documents.
A3	10.03.2007	Application for loan
A4	10.03.2007	Sanction letter
A5	10.03.2007	Hypothecation Agreement (AB-1)
A6	08.03.2007	Registered mortgage deed
A7	01.02.2022	Legal Notice
A8	28.01.2022	Certified Accounts Extract
A9	28.01.2022	Certified accounts extract
A10	28.01.2022	Certified accounts extract
A11	28.01.2022	Certified accounts extract
A12	28.01.2022	Certified accounts extract
A13	28.01.2022	Account closure summary
A14	28.01.2022	Account closure summary
A15	28.01.2022	Account closure summary
A16	28.01.2022	Account closure summary
A17	28.01.2022	Account closure summary

¶78

Witness Examined for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶79

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶80

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Sri Yallappa Sannamudiyappa Penti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Yallappa Sannamudiyappa Penti

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

Formost Center versus Hdfc Ltd.

M/s Md Kaif Poultry Feed versus Indian Bank

Smt Yasmeen versus Icici Bank Limited

Maheswari a versus Punjab National Bank

Canara Bank versus Goudappa Hanumanthappa Huchareddy

Canara Bank versus Smt. Laxmibai