Allowed

State Bank of India v. Akkamma Hanumappa

DRT19 Nov 2025OA/964/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application under the RDB Act, the bank sought a recovery certificate. Defendants did not appear. The Tribunal allowed the application, reducing simple interest to 6% p.a. due to agricultural purpose, and permitted recovery from defendants and schedule property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 24,66,076/- with interest at 6% p.a. (simple), recoverable from respondents jointly/severally/personally and from schedule property.

State Bank of India versus Akkamma Hanumappa — Banking and Recovery | 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.964/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

State Bank of India Asset Recovery Management Branch (ARMB) BKG Complex, Mysore Bank Circle, Avenue Road, Bangalore – 560009 Rep. by its Chief Manager Mr. Prasanta Kumar Biswal … APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

Mrs. Akkamma Aged about 72 years, W/o. Hanumappa Wadder, R/at. Bidarchand, Tq. Sedam, Gulbarga – 585222

¶9

Yellappa Major, S/o. Timmappa Wadder, R/at. Bidarchand, Tq. Sedam, Gulbarga – 585222

¶10

...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : M/s. R & J Associates Defendants : Exparte

¶13

:FINAL ORDER:

¶14

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

¶15

under section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 for

¶16

OA. No.964/2022

¶17

¶18

seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs.24,66,076/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakh Sixty Six Thousand and Seventy Six Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed the agricultural term loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on 17.02.2010 and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards agricultural crop loan on 09.07.2010.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed

¶24

OA. No.964/2022

¶25

¶26

to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 11.12.2023.

¶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 A3 to A15 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶28

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.

¶29

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶30

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

¶31

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶32

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶33

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶34

remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The

¶35

evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and

¶36

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 security interest as claimed by the

¶37

OA. No.964/2022

¶38

¶39

applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. The

¶40

liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due are also

¶41

proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶42

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the

¶43

issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶44

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶45

were 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%

¶46

p.a.(simple).

¶47

In the result, OA.No.964/2022 stands allowed,

¶48

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶49

of Rs.24,66,076/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakh Sixty Six Thousand and Seventy Six Only) with further interest of 6.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from the defendants,

¶50

after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received

¶51

during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against defendants jointly, severally and

¶52

OA. No.964/2022

¶53

¶54

personally and also by proceeding against the schedule property.

¶55

The schedule property to the OA be the schedule properties to the

¶56

Recovery Certificate.

¶57

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

¶58

the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants

¶59

jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable

¶60

for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶61

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶62

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

¶63

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

¶64

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

¶65

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.

¶66

[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].

¶67

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

OA. No.964/2022

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶72

AW-1: Mr. Vinaya K, Chief Manager of the applicant bank.

¶73

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶74

Annexure	Particulars	Date
A1	Affidavit Of Evidence
A2	List of documents
A3	Application Form for Agricultural Term Loan	16.02.2010
A4	Application form agricultural crop loan	05.07.2010
A5	Sanction letter for agricultural term loan	17.02.2010
A6	Sanction letter agricultural crop loan	09.07.2010
A7	Hypothecation agreement for agricultural term loan	16.02.2010
A8	Hypothecation agreement for agricultural term loan	08.07.2010
A9	Registered mortgage deed 13.02.2010	13.02.2010
A10	Agreement for rephasement of term loan instalments agricultural finance	15.03.2013
A11	Legal notice, postal receipts	09.03.2022
A12	Statement of accounts No.62123514029	--
A13	Statement of accounts No. 62137485024	--

¶75

OA. No.964/2022

¶76

¶77

A14	Statement of No.62137485024	accounts	--
A15	Bankers Certificate		--

¶78

Sd/-

¶79

(T. RAJESH)

¶80

PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Akkamma Hanumappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Akkamma Hanumappa

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