Allowed

State Bank of India v. Kmp Traders

DRT19 Nov 2025OA/556/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the State Bank of India for recovery of a loan facility under the RDB Act. The hearing proceeded ex parte as the defendant failed to appear. The Tribunal awarded a Recovery Certificate for the principal sum plus reduced simple interest.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 1,93,12,971/- plus 10% simple interest from filing date; authority to proceed against defendants jointly, severally and personally.

State Bank of India versus Kmp Traders — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 19^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.556/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

The State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch No.9/11, 3^rd Floor, J C Road, Bangalore – 560003 Rep. by its Chief Manager Ms. Daya S Naik … APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

M/s. KMP Traders A proprietorship concern Rep. by Proprietor Abdul Musavvir Pakkaladka Having its address: 8-T-22/4, 54, Pakkaladka Bajal, Kankanady, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada – 575007 ...DEFENDANT

¶9

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶10

Applicant : Mrs. Divya Purander Defendant : Exparte

¶11

:FINAL ORDER:

¶12

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed

¶13

under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendant for Rs.1,93,12,971/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Three Lakh Twelve

¶14

OA. No.556/2024

¶15

¶16

Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy One 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 defendant availed SBI Fleet finance scheme to the tune of Rs.1,76,00,000/- on 01.12.2022 for the purchase of four trucks- TATA Signa 3518 T/5600mm Wheel Base BSVI Truck and body fabrication.

¶18

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

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 27.09.2024.

¶22

OA. No.556/2024

¶23

¶24

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 A3 to A14 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶25

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.

¶26

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: 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, 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

¶30

OA. No.556/2024

¶31

¶32

of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶33

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 to be allowed.

¶34

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was availed for commercial business purpose and also that 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 10.00% (simple).

¶35

In the result, OA.No.556/2024 stands allowed,

¶36

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.1,93,12,971/- (Rupees One Crore Ninety Three Lakh Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy One only) with further interest of 10.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from defendants, 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 defendants jointly, severally and personally and their other assets of the defendants, including the schedule are liable for all such amounts due under the loan account. The schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶37

OA. No.556/2024

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶41

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶42

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

¶43

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶44

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

¶45

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.

¶46

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

¶47

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶48

ANNEXURES

¶49

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶50

AW-1: Nagaraja V, Chief Manager of the applicant bank.

¶51

OA. No.556/2024

¶52

¶53

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶54

Annexure	Particulars
A1	Applicant evidence
A2	List of documents
A3	Copy of the Loan Application Dated 21.11.2022
A4	Copy of the sanction communication dated 01.12.2022
A5	Copy of the letter of arrangement dated 01.12.2022 duly accepted by the defendant
A6	Copy of the hypothecation agreement dated 08.12.2022 along with details and particulars of the hypothecated vehicles
	Copy of letter of undertaking/ declaration regarding
A7	the terms of sanction by defendant dated 08.12.2022
A8	Copy of Letter of Undertaking/Declaration dated 08.12.2022 regarding no litigations against the Defendant
A9	Copy of letter of undertaking/declaration by defendant as there is no relationship with Director of Banking company dated 08.12.2022
	Copy of Letter of Authorisation dated 08.12.2022
A10	authorising the Applicant Bank to access
	information about the Defendant
A11	Copy of Declaration dated 08.12.2022 by the Defendant regarding nil liabilities or claims or IT dues

¶55

OA. No.556/2024

¶56

¶57

A12	Copy of Declaration by Defendant acknowledging the key fact statement of the terms and conditions of the sanction of the term loan dated 08.12.2022
A13	Copy of consent letter signed by Defendant regarding the bank's discretion in respect of enforcement of documents and/or security 08.12.22
A14	Copy of acknowledgement of receipt of loan documents by the Defendant 08.12.22
A15 & A16	Copy of Legal notice dated 23.06.2023 along with postal acknowledgement
A17	Certified true extract of the Statement of account of the account bearing no.41500142408

¶58

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Kmp Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Kmp Traders

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 (Andhra Bank) versus Sh. Jagar @Jaggar Singh @Ujjagar Singh

State Bank of India versus Manjit Kaur

Ms Supreme Briquettes versus Hdfc Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Praveen

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Harjeet Singh

Icici Bank Limited versus Raja Ram Mishra