Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ms S R P Electronics

DRT24 Feb 2026OA/1979/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for issuance of a recovery certificate against a proprietary concern. The tribunal found evidence unrebutted, fixed interest at 10% p.a. simple, and directed recovery from hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs.22,94,330/- plus interest @10% p.a. simple from filing date; realization against hypothecated movables; disposal of interim applications.

State Bank of India versus Ms S R P Electronics — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of February, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH Hon’ble Presiding Officer

¶4

O.A.No.1979 of 2023

¶5

State Bank of India, B.M. Road Branch, Channapatna.

¶6

… Applicant.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s.S.R.P.Electronic, A Proprietary Concern, Represented by its Proprietor, Sri Rakesh M.P., Old No.2269/A1A5, New No.2269/AA5/1, B.M.Road, Channapatna Town, Ramanagar District – 562 160.

¶9

And also at : R/o. #975, 2^nd Cross, Near Chamundeshwari Temple, Chamundeshwari Extension, Ramanagar Town – 562 160. … Defendant. Counsel for Applicant : Sri G.N.Sathyamurthy. Defendants : Exparte.

¶10

…… ORDER

¶11

The Application is filed under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debts

¶12

And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for a sum of Rs.22,94,330/- together with further interest @14% p.a. compounded with monthly rests from 06.10.2023 till the

¶13

¶14

date of realisation together with costs from the defendant and by way of sale of hypothecated movables.

¶15

The Applicant contends that the defendant, a proprietary concern represented by its proprietor Sri Rakesh approached the applicant bank for Cash Credit limit of Rs.20,00,000/- and availed the same on 22.01.2021 by execution of necessary loan documents including Agreement of Loan Cum Hypothecation. The defendant also hypothecated the movables described in schedule to the OA in favour of applicant for due repayment of the loan.

¶16

It is also stated that the above facility was availed after execution of necessary loan documents by defendant obliging himself to repay the amount promptly and regularly, without fail.

¶17

The Applicant further contends that after availing the aforesaid facility, the defendant failed to regularize the said loan and hence the loan account of the defendant was classified as NPA. The applicant bank had also issued legal notice dt.03.08.2023 calling upon the defendant to repay the dues. Despite availing the credit facility by obliging to pay back the amount, the defendant failed in compliance of the same and all the efforts of the Applicant to make the defendant to pay back the amount failed, forcing the Applicant to file this Application.

¶18

¶19

Summons was taken out and as the defendant failed to enter appearance, he was set exparte on 22.11.2024.

¶20

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 A6, got the same marked in evidence.

¶21

Heard. The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶22

i) Whether the applicant succeeded in proving the OA claim as

¶23

against the Defendant?

¶24

ii)If so, to what extent?

¶25

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶26

The Applicant’s evidence remains un-rebutted and hence proved. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the OA claim. Hence the Applicant is found to be entitled for the OA claim. The OA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

¶27

Since the OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest with default interest and that the facility is availed in respect of Cash Credit limit the pendent lite and future interest is awarded at simple rate that too at reduced rate of 10% p.a. (simple).

¶28

In view of the above

¶29

i) OA No.1979 of 2023 stands allowed.

¶30

¶31

ii) Applicant is permitted to recover a sum of Rs.22,94,330/(Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Ninety Four Thousands Three Hundred and Thirty only) together with interest @10% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of OA till the date of realization from the defendant and his assets including the hypothecated movables are liable to be proceeded against for realization of dues after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA.

¶32

iii) A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the Recovery Officer to enable recovery of the dues as per the above terms.

¶33

iv) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

¶34

v) Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶35

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶36

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24^th day of February, 2026)

¶37

Sd./- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶38

¶39

Applicant Witness:

¶40

AW1 –Ms.Jayalakshmi.M., Chief Manager, Applicant Bank.

¶41

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶42

Ext.A1 - Application for Loan dt.18.12.2020. Ext.A2 - Arrangement Letter dt.22.01.2021. Ext.A3 - Hypothecation Agreement dt. 22.01.2021. Ext.A4 - Legal Notice dt.03.08.2023. Ext.A5 - Certified Accounts Extract dt.05.10.2023. Ext.A6 - Account Closure Summary dt.05.10.2023.

¶43

Witness Examined for the Defendant:

¶44

NIL

¶45

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant :

NIL

Sd./-

(T. RAJESH)

PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Ms S R P Electronics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ms S R P Electronics

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