Allowed

State Bank of India v. L. Kumar Kale

DRT28 Nov 2025OA/567/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for issuance of a recovery certificate against the defendant proprietor for a business loan default, awarding interest at 10% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 24,40,015.03 plus pendente lite and future interest at 10% p.a. (simple) and costs of proceedings.

State Bank of India versus L. Kumar Kale — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 28^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.567/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, No. 11/9, 3^rd Floor, Near Old Shivaji Theater, J. C. Road, Bangalore -560002, Rep. by its Chief Manager,

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. L. Kumar Kale, S/o. Lakshman Rao Kale, Proprietor of M/s. Devi Enterprises, Shivapura Gate, D’ Cross Road, Doddaballapur, Bengaluru Rural -562103.

¶10

Also: Vaddarapette, Doddaballapur, Bengaluru Rural -561203.

¶11

Also at: House No. 2187, Ganigarapete, Doddaballapur Town, Bengaluru Rural -561203.

¶12

...DEFENDANT

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : Sri. Naveen Tao Defendant : Exparte

OA 567/2024

FINAL ORDER

The present Original Application in short “OA” has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 24,40,015.03 (Rupees twenty-four lakh forty thousand fifteen and paisa three only) with further interest thereon and cost from the Defendant.

¶19

The Applicant states that the Defendant, as the proprietor of M/s. Devi Enterprises, is the borrower and had availed a Cash Credit limit of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakh only) under the Electronic Dealer Financing Scheme. Further, at the request of the Defendant, the said Cash Credit facility was renewed for the same amount on 15.03.2019.

¶20

It is also the case of the Applicant that, in view of the above loan, the Defendant executed necessary loan documents in favour of the Applicant bank to secure the loan and also had created hypothecation over the schedule property.

¶21

It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendant, despite availing the credit facility, after agreeing with the Terms and Conditions for the loan, failed in complying with the same,

¶22

OA 567/2024

¶23

¶24

resulting in defaults and consequentially turning the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset (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

Despite, taking out the summons, there was no appearance of Defendant. Hence, he was called absent and set ex parte on 06.01.2025.

¶27

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-1 to A11, got the same marked in evidence.

¶28

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered

¶29

the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and the proof affidavit.

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter: i) Whether the applicant succeeded in proving the OA claim as against the Defendant?

¶31

ii) If so, to what extent?

¶32

OA 567/2024

¶33

¶34

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶35

The case put forth by the Applicant in the Application

¶36

remains unrebutted as Defendant remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the Applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidence put forth by the Applicant is found admissible and are sufficient to prove the averments made in the OA, and the defaults committed by the Defendant in repaying the loan amount due. The liability of the Defendant and the loan amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the Applicant is well within the limitation.

¶37

Hence in view of the above findings this Tribunal comes

¶38

to the conclusion that the OA is liable to be allowed.

¶39

Taking into consideration the fact that the loan is availed

¶40

by the Defendant for business purpose and also the fact that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, pendente lite and future interest is awarded at 10.00% (simple). The prayer for interest with monthly rests and for penal interest for the future period is hereby declined.

¶41

In the result, OA.No.567/2024, is allowed,

¶42

OA 567/2024

¶43

¶44

i) The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum

¶45

of Rs. 24,40,015.03 (Rupees twenty four lakh forty thousand

¶46

fifteen and paisa three only) with pendente lite and future interest of 10.00% p.a. (simple), from the date of filing od the OA till the realization, from the Defendant personally after giving

¶47

credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the defendant personally and their assets including the schedule movable property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶48

ii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶49

for which Applicant to file cost memo within seven days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶50

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

¶51

iv) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of

¶52

in terms of this final order.

¶53

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶54

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

¶55

OA 567/2024

¶56

¶57

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶58

(Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28^th day of November, 2025)

¶59

Sd/(T. RAJESH)

¶60

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶61

ANNEXURES

¶62

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶63

AW-1: Sri. Nagaraja V, Chief Manager of Applicant Bank.

¶64

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶65

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	17.11.2014	Application for MSME loan
A2	22.12.2014	Agreement of loan Cum Hypothecation
A3	22.12.2014	Arrangement letter
A4	22.12.2014	Agreement by the dealer under electronic dealer financing scheme
A5	03.10.2018	Affidavit
A6	15.03.2019	Agreement of loan cum Hypothecation
A7	15.03.2019	Arrangement letter
A8	18.02.2022	Letter of Revival
A9	22.12.2023	Legal notice along with postal receipt
A10	--	Postal cover returned unserved
A11	--	Statement of account

¶66

Witness Examined for the Defendant:

¶67

-Nil -

¶68

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant:

-Nil -

Sd/-

(T. RAJESH)

PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. L. Kumar Kale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. L. Kumar Kale

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