Allowed

State Bank of India v. Phanikrishna Pinnamaneni

DRT28 Nov 2025OA/491/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed an application for a Recovery Certificate under Section 19(1) of the RDB Act. The court accepted the applicant's evidence regarding a defaulted housing loan, granted the principal sum with interest at 6% p.a., and authorized recovery from specific properties and personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.2,98,75,857/- with interest @6% p.a. (simple), recoverable from scheduled properties and personally from defendants.

State Bank of India versus Phanikrishna Pinnamaneni — Specific Performance | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE

¶2

Dated this 28^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH Hon’ble Presiding Officer

¶4

O.A.No.491 of 2023

¶5

State Bank of India, RACPC II, 12^th Cross, 7^th Main, 3^rd Block, Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 034. Represented herein by its Asst. General Manager. Sri Ram Prasad Prajapati. … Applicant.

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mr.Phanikrishna Pinnamaneni, S/o.Mr.Rama Rao Pinnamaneni, Flat No.304, Gandhi Nagar, Tenali, Guntur District.

¶8

M/s.A.R.Developers & Builders, A Partnership Firm, No.66, 8^th Cross, Kempanna Layout, Cholanayakanahalli, R.T.Nagar Post, Bangalore – 560 032.

¶9

Mr.J.Chengam Naidu, S/o.Late Mr.J.Rama Naidu, No.287/B, 9^th A Main Road, 40^th Cross, 5^th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041. … Defendants. Counsel for Applicant : Sri B.N.Tulsi Kumar. Defendants : Exparte. ……

¶10

¶11

ORDER

¶12

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.2,98,75,857/- together with future interest @9.35% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of OA till the date of realisation together with costs from the defendants jointly and severally and by way of sale of schedule mentioned properties.

¶13

The Applicant contends that the 1^st defendant approached the applicant bank for Housing loan of Rs.3,00,00,000/- to purchase a schedule ‘A’ property in respect of which 1^st Defendant had entered into an Agreement of Sale and Construction with the 3^rd and 2^nd Defendants. At the request of 1^st Defendant the loan amount was released to 3^rd defendant and 1^st defendant availed the said loan on 24.09.2018 by execution of necessary loan documents including Agreement for loan and agreement to mortgage of Item No. A of the schedule mentioned property. The defendants have also entered into a Tripartite Agreement on 24.09.2018 wherein it is agreed that the applicant shall have the first lien over the said Villa and the money paid to 2^nd and 3^rd defendants. However, the defendants failed to complete the mortgage formalities and also failed to pay the agreed

¶14

¶15

instalments. Hence, the applicant has sought attachment of Item No.

¶16

A of the schedule mentioned property.

¶17

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.

¶18

The Applicant further contends that after availing the aforesaid facility, the defendant failed to regularize the said loan and hence the loan account of the defendant was classified as NPA. The applicant bank had issued legal notice dt.23.11.2020 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 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 09.08.2024.

¶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 A3 to A10, 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

¶24

against the Defendants?

¶25

ii)If so, to what extent?

¶26

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶27

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 found to be entitled for the OA claim. The OA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶28

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 6% p.a. (simple).

¶29

In view of the above

¶30

i) OA No.491 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶31

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.2,98,75,857/- (Rupees Two Crores Ninety Eight Lakhs Seventy Five Thousands Eight Hundred and Fifty Seven only) together with interest @6% 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

¶32

¶33

OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the properties described in Item Nos. ‘B’ and ‘C’ of the schedule to the OA. The schedule to the OA to be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

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.

¶38

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶39

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28^th day of November, 2025)

¶40

Sd./-

¶41

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

¶43

Applicant Witness:

¶44

AW1 –Mr.Kiran S.Mathada, Chief Manager, Applicant Bank.

¶45

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶46

Ext.A1 - Arrangement Letter dt.20.09.2018. Ext.A2 - Loan Agreement dt.24.09.2018. Ext.A3 - Agreement to Mortgage dt.24.09.2018. Ext.A4 - Tripartite Agreement dt.24.09.2018. Ext.A5 - Legal Notice dt.23.11.2020. Ext.A6 - MOTD dt.06.02.2016. Ext.A7 - MOTD dt.22.02.2017. Ext.A8 - Statement of Account.

¶47

Witness Examined for the Defendant:

¶48

NIL

¶49

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant :

¶50

NIL

¶51

Sd./-

¶52

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Phanikrishna Pinnamaneni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Phanikrishna Pinnamaneni

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

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Vasantha Mary

Canara Bank versus Girithimappa G D

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus M/S Rapido Fashions

Ms Sandhya Granites versus Indian Overseas Bank

Ms Basaveshwara Rice Industries versus State Bank of India

Garudachala Properties Private Limited versus Capri Global Capital Limited