Allowed

State Bank of India v. Jeevana

DRT31 Jul 2026OA/1577/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an application under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act seeking a recovery certificate of Rs. 1.52 crore against legal heirs of deceased borrowers. Court held evidence uncontroverted in absentia and reduced interest to 7%. Permitted recovery from inherited estate and schedule property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate for Rs. 1.52 crore with 7% simple interest against estate of deceased borrowers and their personal assets.

State Bank of India versus Jeevana — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

pIN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 31^th Day of July, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer OA.No.1577/2025

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

State Bank of India Branch office at: 11/90, 3^rd floor, JC road, Bengaluru – 560 002

¶7

Represented by its Chief Manager Mrs. Daya S Naik …APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Mrs. Jeevana Shashikanth Shetty W/o. Mr. Shashikanth Shetty Aged about 59 years

¶10

Mr. Shashikanth Shetty S/o. Mr. Shashikanth Shetty Aged about 59 years

¶11

Both are residing at: No. 2-266, Praknith House, Kolambe Village, Gurupura Kaikamba, Dakshina Kannada – 574 151 ...DEFENDANTS

¶12

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶13

Applicant : B N Tulsi Kumar Defendants : Ex parte

¶14

2 OA-1577/2025

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

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. 1,52,26,425/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty-Two Lakhs Twenty-Six Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty-Five Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶17

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants are the legal heirs of the deceased borrowers. The Late borrower Mr. B Balakrishna Shetty & Mrs. Kalavathi B Shetty availed a Reverse Mortgage loan of Rs. 67,25,000/- (Rupees Sixty-Seven Lakhs Twenty-Five Thousand Only) for the purpose of supplementing their income to meet personal expenses.

¶18

The deceased borrower executed necessary loan document in favour of the applicant bank as security for the due repayment of the loan, interest, cost and charges. The Late borrower Sri. Suresh Naik & Defendant no.2 had also executed Registered Mortgage Deed dated 16.03.2004.

¶19

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 accounts as NPA.

¶20

3 OA-1577/2025

¶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, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set ex parte on 20.04.2026.

¶23

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-06 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶24

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.

¶25

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶26

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

¶27

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶28

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶29

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained ex parte. The evidence tendered

¶30

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 as stated in the OA,

¶31

4 OA-1577/2025

¶32

creation of the security interest 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

¶35

is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶36

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility is availed for personal purpose and also that the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal of the view that OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 7.00% simple).

¶37

In the result, OA.No.1577/2025, stands allowed,

¶38

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs.1,52,26,425/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty-Two Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Five Only) with further interest @7.00%p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants, to the extent of their inheritance of any estate form the deceased borrowers, Mr. B Balakrishna Shetty & Mrs. Kalavathi B Shetty, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule property. The

¶39

5 OA-1577/2025

¶40

schedule property to the OA be the schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶41

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

¶42

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants

¶43

jointly, severally and personally and their assets are liable for all

¶44

such amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶45

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶49

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

¶50

terms of this final order.

¶51

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶52

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

¶53

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶54

[Dictated to the Stenographer (HS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 31^th Day of July, 2026].

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICE

¶57

6 OA-1577/2025

¶58

ANNEXURES

¶59

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶60

AW-1: Syed Mohamed Eliyas, S/o. late S A Razack, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶61

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶62

Exhibits	Description
A1	Letter of arrangement dated 20.05.2008
A2	Agreement of loan dated 20.05.2008
A3	EM confirmation letter dated 21.05.2008
A4	Death certificate of Mrs. Kalavathi B Shetty issued on 22.02.2022
A5	Demand notice dated 13.09.2023
A6	Statement of account

¶63

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

¶64

-Nil -

¶65

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶66

-Nil –

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Jeevana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Jeevana

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

Canara Bank versus Ms Kalka Packaging

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Fine Line Retails Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Ramappa G Khanagoudar

Mrs Azaz Fatima versus Hero Housing Finance Limited

M/s Pannalal Associates versus Anand Rathi Global Finance Limited

Ranjana Sharma versus Icici Bank Limited