Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ms Sushi Fabritech

DRT27 Nov 2025OA/873/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an exparte hearing, the DRT allowed the applicant bank's recovery certificate application against defendants who failed to repay a credit card loan and subsequent facility, finding the evidence uncontroverted and admitting the liability.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate allowed for Rs. 32,67,164 with 12% simple interest from filing date; execution against defendants jointly and severally including hypothecated assets; costs awarded to applicant.

State Bank of India versus Ms Sushi Fabritech — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of November, 2025

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.873/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, No 11/90, 3^rd Floor, Opposite to Trust Well Hospital, J C Road, Bengaluru- 560002, Represented by Its Chief Manager, Smt. Daya S Naik

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

M/s Sushi Fabritech, Represented by its Partners 2 & 3, At: # 2-83/1 Bhagavathi Complex, Capitanio, Near Pumpwell, Kankanady, Mangalore- 575002.

¶10

Smt. Shilpa Bangera, W/o Suresh Bangera, Aged about 46 years, R/at: #5-22/1, Bhagvathi Kripa, Nagori Gudde Thota, Kankanady, Mangalore- 575002.

¶11

Smt. Surakshitha S, D/o Sri. Suresh Bangera, Aged about 25 years, R/at: #5-22/1, Nagori Gudda Thota, Kankanady, Mangalore- 575002.

¶12

...DEFENDANTS

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : Malini Vinay Defendants : Exparte

OA 873/2024

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 against the defendants for Rs. 32,67,164/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand One Hundred Sixty Four Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization. The 1^st defendant is the partnership firm represented by its partners defendants No. 2 & 3.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants availed CCL of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand Only).

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with hypothecation agreement and demand promissory note.

¶21

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

¶22

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the balance amount due in the account.

¶23

Despite, summons on the defendants, they failed to appear resulting the defendants being set exparte on 28.10.2024.

¶24

OA 873/2024

¶25

¶26

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 A-18 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

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.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

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

¶30

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants 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 facilities as stated in the OA, creation of Hypothecation and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶33

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal

¶34

OA 873/2024

¶35

¶36

find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of

¶37

the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶38

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶39

availed for Business purpose 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 12.00% (simple).

¶40

In the result, OA.No.873/2024, stands allowed,

¶41

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 32,67,164/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand One Hundred Sixty Four Only) with further interest @12.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly,

¶42

severally & personally, 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 & personally and also proceeding against thier assets including the hypothecated assets. Schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶43

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

¶44

iii) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and

¶45

OA 873/2024

¶46

¶47

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶48

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

¶49

of this final order.

¶50

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

¶51

of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure)

¶52

Rules, 1993.

¶53

[Dictated to the Stenographer (AJ), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27^th Day of November, 2025].

¶54

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

¶55

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶56

ANNEXURES

¶57

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶58

AW-1: Govind L Ballal, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶59

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶60

Exhibit Nos.	Date	List of documents
		CCL of Rs. 7,50,000/- originally sanctioned on 05.08.2016 in A/c 64202051369, later enhanced to 30 lakhs on 28.06.2019
A1	01.08.2016	Partnership letter by defendants
A2	05.08.2016	Application form for loan
A3	05.08.2016	Letter of arrangement
A4 & A5	05.08.2016	Demand promissory note and delivery letter
A6	05.08.2016	Agreement of loan cum hypothecation
A7	03.12.2018	Letter of arrangement
A8	03.12.2018	Supplemental agreement of loan-cum- hypothecation
A9	28.06.2019	Letter of arrangement for enhancement by applicant on
A10	28.06.2019	Supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation

¶61

OA 873/2024

¶62

¶63

A11	28.06.2019	Guarantee agreement
A12	13.05.2020	Letter of arrangement by applicant bank for renewal
A13	13.05.2020	Supplemental agreement of loan-cum-hypothecation
A14	13.05.2020	Guarantee agreement
A15	31.12.2020	Letter of arrangement
A16	29.02.2021	Legal notice
A17	--	Postal receipts & acknowledgements
A18	--	Statement of account

¶64

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil - List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil -

¶65

-Nil -

¶66

Sd/-
(T. RAJESH)
PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Ms Sushi Fabritech

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ms Sushi Fabritech

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus Ashok Kumar

Canara Bank versus Amarjit Singh

Ajay Kashyap versus Piramal Capital

Ms Hi Tech Constructions versus State Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Lal Babu Singh

Isaac john gill versus Bank of Baroda