Allowed

State Bank of India v. Hetali Roshan Fernandes

DRT23 Feb 2026OA/117/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the application for a recovery certificate issued under Section 19(1) of the RDB Act. The court found the claim un-rebutted, adjusted interest rates, and permitted realization against mortgaged property and personally against defendants.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs.33,02,343 plus interest at 6% p.a. simple. Authorized recovery by sale of mortgaged property and personal execution against defendants.

State Bank of India versus Hetali Roshan Fernandes — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE

¶2

Dated this 23^rd Day of February, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH Hon’ble Presiding Officer

¶4

O.A.No.117 of 2024

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, No.11/9, 3^rd Floor, Near Old Shivaji Theater, J C Road, Bangalore – 560 002. Represented by its Chief Manager.

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Mrs.Hetali Roshan Fernandes, W/o. Roshan Mohan Fernandes.

¶9

Mr.Roshan Mohan Fernandes, S/o.Mohan Fernandes.

¶10

Both residing at: No.101, Dream Land Apartments, Military Road, Next to Tanvi Supermarket, Marol Village, Andheri East, Mumbai. J.B.Nagar. Maharashtra – 400 059.

¶11

Also at : Flat No.404, “Matha Ruby Block”, Sai Matha Garden Apartments, Iddya, Mangalore – 575 005. … Defendants. Counsel for Applicant : Sri Naveen Tao. Defendants : Exparte. ……

¶12

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Application is filed under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for a sum of Rs.33,02,343/- together with further interest @7.05% plus 2% penal interest from the date of application till the date of realisation together with costs from the defendants jointly and severally and by way of sale of schedule mentioned property.

¶15

The Applicant contends that the 1^st defendant as the borrower and 2^nd defendant as co-borrower who are residing at Mumbai approached the applicant bank for Housing loan of Rs.27,45,000/- for purchase of residential apartment in Mangalore, Karnataka and availed the same on 18.01.2021 by execution of necessary loan documents including Memorandum of Loan Agreement, Deed of Undertaking and Agreement to Mortgage. The defendants have also mortgaged the schedule mentioned property in favour of applicant by execution of Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dt.15.04.2021 which is registered as Doc.No.MGT-1-00532-2021-22 at the Office of Sub-Registrar, Mangalore for due repayment of the loan.

¶16

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendants obliging themselves to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶17

¶18

The Applicant further contends that after availing the aforesaid facility, the defendants failed to regularize the said loan and hence the loan account of the defendants was classified as NPA on 31.12.2022. The applicant bank had issued Demand notice u/s.13(2) of SARFAESI Act dt.03.01.2023 calling upon the defendants for repayment of dues. Despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendants failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant to make the defendants to pay back the amount failed, forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶19

Summons was taken out and as the defendants failed to enter appearance, they were set exparte on 29.08.2024.

¶20

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, got the same marked in evidence.

¶21

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶22

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

¶23

ii)If so, to what extent?

¶24

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶25

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible

¶26

¶27

and are sufficient to prove the OA claim. Hence the Applicant is

¶28

found to be entitled for the OA claim. The OA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶29

Since the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest with default interest and that the facilities are availed in respect of Housing Loan the pendent lite and future interest is awarded at simple rate that too at reduced rate of 6% p.a. (simple).

¶30

In view of the above

¶31

i) OA No.117 of 2024 stands allowed.

¶32

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover an amount of Rs.33,02,343/(Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Two Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Three only) together with interest @6% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization together with costs from the defendants jointly, severally and personally after giving 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 schedule mentioned property. The schedule to the OA to be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶33

¶34

iii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient to clear the liability, then

¶35

the Defendants are personally and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against for realization of respective dues.

¶36

iv) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the Recovery Officer to enable recovery of the dues as per the above terms.

¶37

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

¶38

vi) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶39

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

¶40

of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶41

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23^rd day of February, 2026)

¶42

Sd./- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

Applicant Witness:

¶44

AW1 –Mr.Govind L.Ballal, Chief Manager, Applicant Bank.

¶45

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶46

Ext.A1 - Evidence Affidavit. Ext.A2 - List of Documents.

¶47

¶48

Ext.A3 - Application for Home Loan by the Borrower (A/c.No.39989698987) dt.05.10.2020. Ext.A4 - Application for Home Loan by the Co-Applicant dt.05.10.2020. Ext.A5 - One time declaration letter by the Borrower dt.05.10.2020. Ext.A6 - One time declaration letter by the Co-Applicant dt.05.10.2020. Ext.A7 - Sanction/Arrangement Letter dt.30.11.2020. Ext.A8 - Memorandum of Loan Agreement dt.18.01.2021. Ext.A9 - Letter requesting to make Account Operative at Bejai Kapikad, Mangalore dt.18.01.2021. Ext.A10 - Deed of Undertaking dt.18.01.2021. Ext.A11 - Agreement to Mortgage dt.18.01.2021. Ext.A12 - Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds registered as Doc.No.MGT-1-00532/2021-22 at the office of SubRegistrar, Mangalore Taluk dt.15.04.2021. Ext.A13 - Demand Notice dt.03.01.2023. Ext.A14 - Four Acknowledgement Cards served. Ext.A15 - Bank Statement Loan A/c.No.39989698987.

¶49

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶50

NIL

¶51

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants :

¶52

NIL

¶53

Sd./- PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Hetali Roshan Fernandes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Hetali Roshan Fernandes

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

Punjab National Bank versus M/S S.F. Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Reeta Jain

Punjab National Bank versus M/S J.J. India

Joshy Zacharias versus State Bank of India

Indira K v versus South Indian Bank

Karur Vysya Bank versus Dakshyini Venugopal and Others