Allowed

State Bank of India v. Kantha.M Alias Kanthamma

DRT24 Jun 2026OA/1965/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-II, Bengaluru allowed the applicant bank's Original Application under Section 19 RDB Act for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against defaulting borrowers and heirs of a deceased borrower, reducing interest to 8% p.a.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 29,59,809/- plus 8% p.a. simple interest; defendants liable personally and to the extent of inheritance if property sale proceeds are insufficient.

State Bank of India versus Kantha.M Alias Kanthamma — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of June, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH

¶4

Presiding Officer

¶5

OA. No.1965/2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

State Bank of India Koramangala Branch At No.12, 3^rd Floor, 7^th Main, 3^rd Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560034 Rep. by the Chief Manager Mr. Jagadish A.T. Badiger

¶8

… APPLICANT

¶9

AND:

¶10

Mrs. Kantha M @ Kanthamma Aged 51 years W/o. Late Mr. Sampangappa.N

¶11

Ms. Suvarna Aged 35 years D/o. Late Mr. Sampangappa N

¶12

Mr. Bharath Aged 33 years S/o. Late Mr. Sampangappa N

¶13

All residing at: a) No.4/1, Haragadde village, jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru-56105

¶14

b) No.129, Haragadde village, jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru-56105 ...DEFENDANTS

¶15

OA. No.1965/2023

¶16

¶17

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶18

Applicant : M/s. R N S P Achanta Defendants : Exparte

¶19

:FINAL ORDER:

¶20

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.29,59,809/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Nine only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶21

It is the case of the applicant that, the deceased borrower along with defendant No.1 availed home loan of Rs.30,00,000/- for construction on 03.03.2016.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

OA. No.1965/2023

¶25

¶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 and 21.05.2025.

¶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 A1 to A12 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 proof affidavit.

¶30

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶31

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

¶32

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶33

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶34

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The

¶35

OA. No.1965/2023

¶36

¶37

evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and

¶38

undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of credit facility

¶39

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

¶40

11. Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the

¶41

issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶42

12. Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility

¶43

was availed for housing purpose and also that OA claim is arrived

¶44

at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view

¶45

of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 8.00%

¶46

p.a.(simple).

¶47

In the result, OA.No.1965/2023 stands allowed,

¶48

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum

¶49

OA. No.1965/2023

¶50

¶51

of Rs.29,59,809/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand

¶52

Eight Hundred and Nine only) with further interest of 8.00% p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization from the defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 to defendants No.1 to 3 to the extent of inheritance of any estate from the deceased borrower,

¶53

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

¶54

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant No.1 personally and defendant No.1 to 3 to the extent of inheritance of any estate from the deceased borrower are liable for all such amounts due under the loan account.

¶55

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶56

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

¶57

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶58

OA. No.1965/2023

¶59

¶60

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

¶61

with this Final Order.

¶62

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

¶63

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

¶64

[Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 24^th Day of June 2026].

¶65

(T. RAJESH)

¶66

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶67

ANNEXURES

¶68

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶69

AW-1: Mr. Syed Mohammed Eliyas, Chief Manager of the applicant bank.

¶70

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶71

Sl. No.	Date	Description of Documents	Exhibit Number
1	03.03.2016	Copies of arrangement letter issued by applicant’s RACPC Koramangala	A1
2	03.03.2016	Copy of memorandum of loan agreement`	A2
3	03.03.2016	Copy of agreement to mortgage	A3
4	03.03.2016	Copy of affidavit is executed by Mr. Sampangappa N	A4
5	18.03.2016	Copy of letter of deposit of title deeds is sent by post	A5
6	25.02.2016	Copy of memorandum of relating to deposit of title deeds	A6
7	13.01.2016	Copy of title investigation report	A7

¶72

OA. No.1965/2023

¶73

¶74

8	18.01.2016	Copy of valuation report on schedule property is obtained by applicant	A8
9	05.03.2019	Demand notice under S.13(2) of he SARFAESI Act	A9
10	10.02.2022	Copy of the possession notice under S.13(4) of the SARFAESI Act	A10
11	09.02.2023	Copy of legal notice issued to the defendants	A11
12	-	Copy/ies statement/s of account/s duly certified under the Banker’s Book Evidence Act, by the applicant in respect of the applicant’s total claim as debt due from the defendants	A12

¶75

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Kantha.M Alias Kanthamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Kantha.M Alias Kanthamma

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

State Bank of India versus Haja Majmudeen Abdul Razak

Union Bank of India versus M/s Pallavi Pharma

Ms Joysri Enterprises versus Indian Bank

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus Haji Mohammad Sultan Sofi

Ellaquai Dehati Bank versus Ghulam Rasool Mir

Keshav Prasad Choubey versus Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Limited