Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sidramappa

DRT30 Jan 2026OA/1254/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for a recovery certificate against two borrowers who failed to repay an agricultural term loan. The Tribunal confirmed the debt and reduced interest to 6% p.a. due to agricultural purpose.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs.71,61,316/- and further interest at 6% p.a. (simple) from filing date; recovery against defendants jointly, severally, and personally and via schedule property.

State Bank of India versus Sidramappa — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 30^th Day of January, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA. No.1254/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

State Bank of India Asset Recovery Management Branch 2^nd Floor, A Block, BKG Complex, Mysore Bank Circle, Avenue Road, Bangalore, Rep. by its Chief Manager Sri. Krishna Kant Rastogi

¶8

… APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Sri. Sidaramappa Aged about 67 years S/o. Sri. Ningappa Nagoor Residing at Bhailapur Village, Hebbal.G Post, Shorapur Taluk, Yadgir District – 585215

¶11

Sri. Hanumantharaya Aged about 65 years S/o. Sri. Ningappa Nagoor Residing at Bhailapur Village, Hebbal B Post, Shorapur Taluk, Yadgir District – 585215 ...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : Sri. N.G. Ravi kumar Defendants : Exparte

OA. No.1254/2022

:FINAL ORDER:

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 defendants for Rs.71,61,316/- (Rupees Seventy One Lakh Sixty One Thousand Three Hundred and Sixteen only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants availed Agricultural Term loan of Rs.4,20,000/- for the purpose of purchase of Tractor, Trailer and its accessories.

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facility, the defendants 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 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.

¶21

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this

¶22

OA. No.1254/2022

¶23

¶24

Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

¶25

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 07.11.2024.

¶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 A1 to A10 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

¶33

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 facility

¶34

OA. No.1254/2022

¶35

¶36

as stated in the OA, creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the account. The liability of the defendants and the claim of the amount due are also

¶37

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

¶38

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶39

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was availed for agricultural 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%

¶40

p.a.(simple).

¶41

In the result, OA.No.1254/2022 stands allowed,

¶42

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶43

of Rs.71,61,316/- (Rupees Seventy One Lakh Sixty One Thousand

¶44

Three Hundred and Sixteen only) with further interest of 6.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from the

¶45

OA. No.1254/2022

¶46

¶47

defendants, 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 defendants jointly, severally and personally and also by proceeding against the schedule property. The schedule property to the OA be the schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶48

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally and personally and their other assets are liable for all such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶49

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶50

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

¶51

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this

¶52

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶53

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

¶54

OA. No.1254/2022

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶58

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 30^th Day of January 2026].

¶59

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶60

ANNEXURES

¶61

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶62

AW-1: Sri. S.E. Ravikumar, Cheif Manager of the applicant bank.

¶63

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶64

Annexure	Date	Particulars
A1	31.03.2004	Loan application
A2	31.03.2004	Loan sanction
A3	31.03.2004	Hypothecation agreement
A4	29.03.2004	Registered mortgage deed
A5	29.07.2021	Statement of account from 31.03.2004 to 29.07.2021 with certificate
A6	29.07.2021	Rephased statement of accounts from 31.03.2004 to 29.07.2021
A7	29.07.2021	Rephased statement of accounts from 31.03.2004 to 29.07.2021

¶65

OA. No.1254/2022

¶66

¶67

A8	04.08.2021	Legal notice
A9	07.08.2021	Original two postal receipts
A10	-	Original postal acknowledgments

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

(T. RAJESH)

¶70

PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Sidramappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sidramappa

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

S Rajeswari versus Union Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Kishan Mitrapal Chawla Dairy

Bank of India versus Ms Narmada Pipes

Ms Khajuria Constructions and Another versus State Bank of India

Raj Kumar Baniya versus State Bank of India

Smt Firoja Begum versus Indian Bank