Allowed

State Bank of India v. Maladanda M Ramesha

DRT31 Dec 2025OA/807/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India for a recovery certificate of Rs.47,24,402.63 plus interest against a defaulting borrower who appeared ex parte. The court reduced interest to 6% simple.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate for Rs.47,24,402.63 with 6% p.a. simple interest from filing date, recoverable from defendant's personal assets and schedule property.

State Bank of India versus Maladanda M Ramesha — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 31^st Day of December, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA. No.807/2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

State Bank of India Branch office at Secured Assets Recovery Branch No.11/9, 3^rd Floor, Near Old Shivaji Theater, J C Road, Bangalore – 560002 Rep. by Chief Manager Smt. Daya Naik …

¶8

… APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Mr. Maladanda M Ramesha S/o. Madappa Aged about 50 years R/o. V. Badaga Village, Kuttandi, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District-571218 ...DEFENDANT

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : Sri. Naveen Tao Defendant : Exparte

¶13

:FINAL ORDER:

¶14

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendant for Rs.47,24,402.63 (Rupees Forty Seven Lakh Twenty Four Thousand

¶15

OA. No.807/2024

¶16

¶17

Four Hundred Two and Sixty Three Paisa only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendant availed the MC-Revised KCC loan of Rs.12,73,900/- and MC-ATL finance loan of Rs.15,00,000/-.

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facilities, the defendant executed necessary loan documents. Apart from the creation of security interest by way of mortgage over the Schedule property.

¶20

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Despite, service of summons on the defendant, he failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 23.10.2024.

¶23

OA. No.807/2024

¶24

¶25

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 A1 to A20 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶29

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶30

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

¶31

OA. No.807/2024

¶32

¶33

amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶34

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.

¶35

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was availed for agriculture 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 6.00% (simple).

¶36

In the result, OA.No.807/2024 stands allowed,

¶37

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.47,24,402.63 (Rupees Forty Seven Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Four Hundred Two and Sixty Three Paisa only) with further interest of 6.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from defendant, 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 defendant personally and his other assets, including the schedule property is liable for all such amounts due under the loan account. The schedule property to the OA be the schedule property to the

¶38

OA. No.807/2024

¶39

¶40

Recovery Certificate.

¶41

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant personally and his other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan account.

¶42

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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.

¶47

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 31^st Day of December 2025].

¶48

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA. No.807/2024

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶53

AW-1: Govind L Ballal, Chief Manager of the applicant bank.

¶54

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶55

Annexure	Date	Particulars
A1	15.06.2017	application for agricultural loan
A2	19.06.2017	Mortgage deed registered as document No.VRP-1-00469-2017-18, at the office of Sub-registrar, Virajpet
A3	20.06.2017	Hypothecation Agreement
A4	20.06.2017	Arrangement letter/sanction letter
A5	19.06.2018	Application for renewal of agricultural credit
A6	19.06.2018	Arrangement letter/sanction letter
A7	31.07.2019	Application for renewal of agricultural credit
A8	31.07.2019	Arrangement letter/sanction letter
A9	01.06.2020	Letter of revival
A10	27.11.2017	Mortgage deed registered as document No.VRP-1-01398-2017-18, at the office of Sub-registrar, Virajpet
A11	29.11.2017	Application for agricultural loan
A12	29.11.2017	Loan agreement
A13	29.11.2017	Arrangement letter/sanction letter
A14	01.11.2020	Letter of Revival
A15	31.07.2021	Letter of Revival

¶56

OA. No.807/2024

¶57

A16	24.01.2024	Legal notice along with postal receipt
A17	-	Postal cover returned unserved
A18	-	Bank statement A/c. No. 36958695418
A19	-	Bank statement A/c.No. 37328640356
	03.12.2014	Gift deed registered as document
A20		No.VRP-1-01360-2014-15, at the office of Sub-registrar, Virajpet

¶58

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Maladanda M Ramesha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Maladanda M Ramesha

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

Idbi Bank versus Sri.Ramesh. B. Gowda

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Ramraj Grewal

Canara Bank versus Mr. Bhanu Tiwari

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Sri.Bheemaraya. N. Bhosale

Mrs Praveena Pattanashetti versus Union Bank of India

Mr Mohammad Ali Saifuddin Navalgund versus Idbi Bank