Allowed

State Bank of India v. Priyadarshini Enterprises

DRT24 Feb 2026OA/1951/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application under the RDB Act, admitting the bank's uncontroverted evidence and debt details. The recovery certificate was issued for the principal amount plus interest reduced from the agreed rate to 12% p.a. to cover future interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate to be drawn for Rs.27,55,150/- with further interest @ 12% p.a. from date of filing OA till realization.

State Bank of India versus Priyadarshini Enterprises — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of February, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.1951/2023

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

State Bank of India, Asset Recovery Management Branch, No.11/90, 3^rd Floor, Near Old Shivaji Theater, J.C. Road, Bengaluru- 560002

¶6

…APPLICANT

¶7

AND:

¶8

M/s Priyadarshini Enterprises Rep by its Prop. Sri. Lokesh B

¶9

S/o B N Basavarajappa R/at: Benakanahalli Village, T Narsipura, Mysuru- 571124

¶10

Sri. Lokesh B S/o. B N Basavarajappa R/at: Benakanahalli Village, T Narsipura, Mysuru- 571124

¶11

Sri. B N Basavarajappa S/o. Late Nanjundaappa R/at: Benakanahalli Village,

¶12

T Narsipura, Mysuru- 571124 ...DEFENDANTS

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : Nandish Patil & Praveen Kumar G.s Advocates Defendants : Exparte

OA 1951-2023

FINAL ORDER

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 Rs.27,55,150/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakh Fifty Five Thousand One Hundred and Fifty 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 defendant No.1 is a Proprietary Concern with defendant No.2 as its Proprietor. Further, the defendants availed the following credit facilities from the applicant bank:-

¶20

I. Cash Credit Loan of a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakh fifty thousand Only) and

¶21

II. GECL loan limit of Rs.3,85,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty five Thousand Only).

¶22

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with agreement of loan, guarantee agreement, letter of arrangement and loan cum hypothecation in favor of the applicant bank.

¶23

¶24

OA 1951-2023

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 21.11.2024.

¶28

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-18 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶29

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and the proof affidavit.

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶31

OA 1951-2023

¶32

¶33

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶34

OA claim as against the defendants?

¶35

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶36

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶37

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 mortgage as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim as the amount due is also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶38

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence

¶39

this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶40

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶41

are availed by defendants for Business purpose and also that OA

¶42

OA 1951-2023

¶43

¶44

claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this

¶45

Tribunal, in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest @12% p.a.(Simple).

¶46

13. In the result, OA.No.1951/2023, stands allowed,

¶47

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶48

sum of Rs.27,55,150/- (Rupees twenty seven lakh fifty five

¶49

thousand one hundred and fifty only) with further interest @ 12% p.a. (Simple),

¶50

from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants

¶51

jointly severally and personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceedings against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶52

(ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendants

¶53

jointly severally and personally and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶54

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶55

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

¶56

OA 1951-2023

¶57

¶58

receipt of the order.

¶59

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

¶60

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶61

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

¶62

in terms of this final order.

¶63

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

¶64

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

¶65

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶66

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 24^nd day of February, 2026].

¶67

Sd/ (T. RAJESH)

¶68

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶69

ANNEXURES

¶70

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶71

AW-1: Vijaya Ganesh Bhat, Authorized Officer, of the Applicant Bank.

¶72

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶73

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	01.10.2014	The letter of arrangement
A2	01.10.2014	Agreement of loan cum hypothecation
A3	01.10.2014	The Guarantee agreement
A4	28.09.2015	The letter of arrangement
A5	28.09.2015	The agreement of loan cum hypothecation
A6	28.09.2015	The guarantee agreement

¶74

OA 1951-2023

¶75

¶76

A7	01.02.2017	The letter of arrangement
A8	01.02.2017	The agreement of loan cum hypothecation
A9	01.02.2017	The guarantee agreement
A10	17.07.2019	Letter of arrangement
A11	17.07.2019	Agreement of loan cum hypothecation
A12	17.07.2019	Guarantee agreement
A13	25.06.2020	Letter of arrangement
A14	25.06.2020	The Guarantee agreement
A15	09.10.2021	Demand Notice
A16	22.12.2021	Possession notice
A17		The statement of Accounts with respect to Loan A/c No.64212527587 and A/c No.39441316403
A18		The certificate under section 2A (b) and 2 A (c) of the Banker’s Books of Evidence Act, 1891

¶77

Witness Examined for the Defendant: -Nil - List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶78

Sd/ (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Priyadarshini Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Priyadarshini Enterprises

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 versus Mr Mohammad Akram S/O Mohammad Quasam

Samiran Roy versus Bank of Baroda

State Bank of India versus Hetali Roshan Fernandes

Ms Tulsi Mineral Water versus State Bank of India

Ms Rehana Enterprise and Anr. versus Bank of Baroda

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank versus Gunderao