Allowed

State Bank of India v. Smt.Shivamma

DRT25 Apr 2025OA/429/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for a recovery certificate against a defendant who failed to repay an agricultural term loan of Rs.4,86,000 sanctioned for a tractor, trailer, and accessories, defaulting on instalments and turning the account into an NPA.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs.79,18,135/- with further interest of 8.00% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing OA till realization.

State Bank of India versus Smt.Shivamma — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 25^th Day of April, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.429/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

State Bank of India (erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad) Having its local head office at St Marks Road, Bangalore and It’s Assets Recovery Management Branch, At 2^nd Floor, A Block, BKG Complex, Mysore Bank Circle, Avenue Road, Bangalore and Karnataka State Represented by its Chief Manager Sri. Krishan Kant Rasthogi … APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Smt. Shivamma Aged about 61 years W/o. Sri. Basalingappa Chincoli Residing at Balshattihal Village, Kamanatagi Post, Shorapur Taluk, Yadgir District - 585291 ..DEFENDANT

¶9

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶10

Applicant : Sri. N. G. Ravi Kumar Defendant : Exparte

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

The present Original Application in short OA has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for

¶13

seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendant for

¶14

2 OA/429/2022

¶15

Rs.79,18,135/- with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶16

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant has availed Agricultural Term loan of Rs.4,86,000/- for the purpose of purchase of Tractor, Trailer and its accessories. It is also the case of the applicant that defendant has undertaken to repay the liability, subject to annual review or on Demand to pay with interest for the value received and further to pay the interest at such rate as revised by the bank from time to time.

¶17

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed the amount, the defendant has executed necessary loan documents.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, she failed to

¶21

3 OA/429/2022

¶22

appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 09.07.2024.

¶23

The applicant let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-3 to A15 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶24

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.

¶25

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶26

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

¶27

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶28

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶29

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application 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, creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. The

¶30

4 OA/429/2022

¶31

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.

¶32

Hence in view of the above finding which cover both the issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶33

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility

¶34

was availed and also that the OA claim is arrived 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%p.a. (simple).

¶35

In the result, OA.No.429/2022 stands allowed,

¶36

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs.79,18,135/- (Rupees Seventy Nine Lakh Eighteen Thousand

¶37

One Hundred and Thirty Five only) with further interest of 8.00%

¶38

p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, 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 schedule property. The schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶39

5 OA/429/2022

¶40

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

¶41

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant

¶42

is personally and other her assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan account.

¶43

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶47

v) Interim Application pending, if any, stands disposed of with this Final Order.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 25^th Day of April 2025].

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶53

6 OA/429/2022

¶54

ANNEXURES

¶55

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶56

AW-1: Sri. Pramodh Gurumallappa, Collection Manager of the applicant bank.

¶57

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶58

Annexure	Particulars
A1	Applicant Evidence
A2	List of Documents
A3	Loan application dated 02.03.2005
A4	Loan sanction dated 02.03.2005
A5	Hypothecation Agreement dated 02.03.2005
A6	Registered Mortgage Deed dated 18.02.2005
A7	Translated Document
A8	Revival letter
A9	Revival letter
A10	Revival letter
A11	Statement of Accounts from 08.03.2010 to 29.07.2021
A12	Statement of accounts from 08.03.2010 to 29.07.2021 with certificate
A13	Legal notice dated 04.08.2021
A14	Postal receipt
A15	Unservedpostal article

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Smt.Shivamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Smt.Shivamma

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

M/S Sandeep Gupta Commission Agent versus Axis Bank

Canara Bank versus Smt,.Subhadrabai

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Highcity Infrastructures Pv Ltd. Rep by Its Directors Sri.R. Umashankar and Smt.H.Devika

Sreekala K S versus State Bank of India

Sri Umakanthraju C versus Srujana Vividoddesha Souharda Sahakari Niyamitha

Union Bank of India versus G S Chethan