Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mithun Enterprises and Another

DRT29 May 2026OA/1378/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an Original Application for a recovery certificate of Rs. 33,01,183.07 plus interest. The Tribunal found the applicant's uncontradicted evidence of loan defaults sufficient, reducing the agreed interest from 18% to 8% per annum while permitting recovery from all assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate drawn for Rs. 33,01,183.07 with 8% p.a. interest from filing date, executable against defendants jointly, severally and personally including hypothecated assets.

State Bank of India versus Mithun Enterprises and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 29^th Day of May, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.1378/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, No.11/90, Third Floor, Near Old Shivaji Theatre, J.C Road, Bangalore-56 002. Represented By its Chief Manager, Sri Mahesh Kumar. C. …APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

1.M/s Mithun Enterprises, A proprietary Concern, Having its office at Vishwanna Layout, Kamala Dhama, Maraluru Dinne Road, Shanthinagar, Tumakuru-572 103. Represented by its Propietor Sri. Mudduraju.K.

¶9

Sri. Mudduraju. K Aged 40 years, S/o Late Kamanna, Proprietor: Mithun Enterprises, Chikkakodathakallu, Obalapura Post, Kora Hobli, Tumakuru-572 106.

¶10

...DEFENDANTS

¶11

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶12

Applicant : M K Venkatramana Defendants : Exparte

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

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

¶15

OA 1378/2024

¶16

¶17

section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 33,01,183.07/(Rupees Thirty Three lakh One Thousand One hundred Eighty Three and Paise Seven Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶18

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant No. 1 is the Proprietorship concern with defendant No. 2 as its Proprietor cum guarantor availed the Cash credit facility of Rs. 40,00,000/- from the applicant bank on 23.03.2023.

¶19

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with Loan application, Arrangement letter, EDFS Agreement, Copy of Legal Notice.

¶20

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.

¶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, summons the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 25.04.2025.

¶23

OA 1378/2024

¶24

¶25

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-9 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:

¶28

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

¶29

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶30

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶31

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

¶32

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

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

¶35

OA 1378/2024

¶36

¶37

the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶38

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶39

availed for improvement of his existing 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 8.00% (simple).

¶40

In the result, OA.No.1378/2024, stands allowed,

¶41

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 33,01,183.07/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh One Thousand One hundred Eighty Three and Paise Seven Only) with further interest @8.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally & 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 defendants jointly, severally & personally and their assets including the hypothecated assets. The schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶42

ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendants jointly, severally & personally and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶43

iii) 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

OA 1378/2024

order.

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

¶48

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶49

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

¶50

of this final order.

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

Rules, 1993.

¶54

[Dictated to the Stenographer (DV), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 29^th Day of May, 2026].

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

OA 1378/2024

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶60

AW-1: Mahesh Kumar. C, Chief Manager, State Bank of India

¶61

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶62

Annexure	Date	List of Documents
A1	14.03.2022	Loan Application
A2	18.03.2022	Second defendant’s Affidavit
A3	23.03.2022	Arrangement letter
A4	23.03.2022	Agreement of Loan cum Hypo
A5	28.03.2022	EDFS Agreement
A6	25.03.2024	Legal Notice & Postal receipts
A7	--	Returned Postal Cover
A8	--	Postal Acknowledgement
A9	--	Account Extract C.C A/c No. 40871754968

¶63

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

¶64

-Nil -

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Mithun Enterprises and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mithun Enterprises and Another

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

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Aby Abraham

RRaju Kalidoss versus Canara Bank

Sajan S versus Yes Bank

Vinod Kumar Gupta versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Marvel Metals Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Mr B S Girisha versus Dcb Bank Limited