Allowed

Bank of India v. Pavithra E

DRT21 Aug 2026OA/2282/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application for a Recovery Certificate. The court held that disputes between the borrower and the builder regarding project completion do not discharge the borrower's liability to the bank. The application for recovery of the outstanding home loan and personal loan dues was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 76,96,488.64 with interest at 8% p.a. simple from 20.09.2024. Bank permitted to proceed against schedule properties and personally against the defendant for balance

Bank of India versus Pavithra E — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 21^st Day of August, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No. 2282/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Bank of India, Asset Recovery Branch, No.11, 1^st Floor, Bank of India Building, Kempegowda Road, Bengaluru -560009, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager,

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Smt. Pavithra E, W/o. Deepak B, Residing at “Vasanth Nilaya”, No.69, 2^nd Floor, 5^th Main, 1^st Stage, Domlur Layout, Bengaluru -560071.

¶10

Also at,

¶11

#553, Krishnamurthy Nilayam, Vijinapura Mian Road, Opp. Shukra Tailors, Rammurthy Nagar, Bangalore South, Koramamgala, Bangalore -560034.

¶12

Also at,

¶13

Havas Media India Pvt. Ltd, #124, 6^th Floor, Surya Chambers, Old Airport Road, Murugesh Palya, Bengaluru -560017.

¶14

...DEFENDANT

¶15

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶16

Applicant : A Mohammed Tahir Defendant : Lex Scripta Advocates

OA 2282/2024

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 for Rs. 76,96,488.64 (Rupees seventy-six lakh ninety-six thousand four hundred eighty-eight and paisa sixty-four only) with further interest thereon and cost from the Defendant.

¶21

It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendant availed a Star Home Loan of Rs. 60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakh only) from the Applicant Bank for the purpose of purchasing his/her first home under the Bank’s Star Home Loan Scheme. Subsequently, the Defendant also availed a Personal Loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh only) from the Applicant Bank for the purpose of furnishing the said house.

¶22

It is also the case of the Applicant that, in consideration of the aforesaid loan facility, the Defendant executed the requisite loan documents including Demand promissory notes, agreement for home loan, Common term agreement and created mortgage over the Schedule properties in favour of the Applicant.

¶23

Despite availing the credit facility, agreeing with the Terms and Conditions for the loans, failed in complying with the same, resulting in defaults and consequentially turning the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

¶24

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount

OA 2282/2024

due in the accounts.

Summons were duly issued to and served upon the Defendant. Pursuant thereto, the Defendant entered appearance through counsel, filed written statement, and led evidence in support of his defence.

¶29

The Defendant contends that the OA is false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed solely to harass the Defendant. It is alleged that the Applicant has suppressed material facts, made false suggestions and has not approached this Hon’ble Tribunal with clean hands. The Defendant states that Shri K. P. Vishwanath, Shri K. P. Harinath, Sri P. Devander Reddy and Shri Bhaskara Muralidhara were the builders/developers/landowners of the residential project known as “Garden Residency” comprised in Schedule-A property to the OA and had formed M/s. Jyeshta Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. The said project was registered under RERA, Karnataka, in the name of “IT Estate”, with an undertaking to complete the construction by 31.12.2020, pursuant to which advertisements were issued and apartments were offered for sale.

¶30

The Defendant states that, relying on the builder’s representations, the Schedule-C flat was booked and the Applicant sanctioned and disbursed the loan to the builder. Though the Defendant paid EMIs of about Rs.5,00,000/-, the builders failed to complete the construction and hand over possession. The Defendant therefore sought cancellation of the transaction and repayment of the amounts paid.

¶31

The Defendant further states that a complaint was filed before the RERA Authority against the builders. It is alleged that the Applicant was

¶32

OA 2282/2024

¶33

¶34

aware of the incomplete project and, in collusion with the builders, sanctioned the loan without following applicable RBI guidelines. On these grounds, the Defendant seeks dismissal of the OA.

¶35

The Applicant examined its authorized representative as AW-1, who filed a proof affidavit reiterating the averments made in the OA and produced documents marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-26 in support of its claim. The Defendant examined himself as DW-1, who filed a proof affidavit reiterating the contentions raised in the Written Statement and produced document marked as Exhibits D-1 in support of his defence.

¶36

Heard for both side and considered the contentions as taken in the OA in the light of documentary evidence and the proof affidavits.

¶37

The following issues arise for consideration in the light of pleading and evidence:

¶38

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

¶39

ii) If so, to what extent?

¶40

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶41

The contentions raised by the Defendant are false, baseless and denied. The alleged disputes relating to the builder, including noncompletion of the project, non-handover of possession, cancellation of the transaction and the proceedings before RERA, are matters between the Defendant and the builder and do not absolve the Defendant of the liability arising out of the loan availed from the Applicant. The Defendant’s own

¶42

OA 2282/2024

¶43

¶44

admission regarding sanction and disbursement of the loan and payment of EMIs establishes the loan transaction. If the Defendant has any grievance or claim against the builder, the Defendant is at liberty to pursue the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law; however, such dispute cannot be made a ground to avoid or defer repayment of the loan to the Applicant. The allegations of collusion, suppression of facts and violation of RBI guidelines are unsupported by any material against the Applicant. Hence, the contentions of the Defendant are liable to be rejected and the OA deserves to be allowed in favour of the Applicant.

¶45

The Applicant has examined its Authorized Representative as AW-1 and produced the relevant loan documents marked as Exhibits A-1 to A- 26, which establish the sanction and availment of the Star Home Loan of and Personal Loan by the Defendant, execution of the requisite loan documents and creation of security over the Schedule Property. The Defendant, though examined as DW-1 and having produced Exhibit D-1, has not disputed the availment of the said loan facilities, execution of the loan documents or payment of the loan amount to the builder. The defence raised by the Defendant relates primarily to the alleged failure of the builder to complete the project and hand over possession, which is a dispute between the Defendant and the builder and does not discharge the Defendant’s liability towards the Applicant. The Defendant has not produced any material to establish that the loan liability has been discharged or otherwise extinguished. Hence, the evidence adduced by the Applicant establishes the loan transaction and the Defendant’s liability to

¶46

OA 2282/2024

¶47

¶48

repay the outstanding dues, and the defence raised by the Defendant does not disprove the Applicant’s claim.

¶49

Hence in view of the above findings this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the OA is liable to be allowed.

¶50

Taking into consideration the fact that the loan is availed by the Defendant is housing loan and personal loan and also the fact that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, pendente lite and future interest is awarded at reduced rate of 8.00% p.a. (simple). The prayer for interest with monthly rests and for penal interest for the future period is hereby declined.

¶51

In the result, OA.No.2282/2024, is allowed,

¶52

i) The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs.

¶53

76,96,488.64 (Rupees seventy-six lakh ninety-six thousand four hundred eighty-eight and paisa sixty-four only) along with pendente lite and future interest of 8.00% p.a. (simple), 20.09.2024 till the realization, from the Defendant personally after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA if any, and allow the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule properties. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶54

ii) If the sale proceeds are found insufficient to clear the loan

¶55

amount due from the Defendant personally then the Applicant Bank shall be at liberty to proceed against Defendant personally and her other assets

¶56

OA 2282/2024

¶57

¶58

for recovery of the balance amount due, in accordance with law.

¶59

iii) The Applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings for which

¶60

Applicant to file cost memo within seven days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶61

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

¶62

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶63

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

¶64

of this final order.

¶65

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

¶66

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

¶67

Rules, 1993.

¶68

(Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21^st day of August, 2026).

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶71

ANNEXURES

¶72

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶73

AW-1: Gowthami Varre, Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶74

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶75

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	2907.2022	Housing loan application
A2	30.07.2022	Sanction letter
A3		30.07.2022 Agreement for Home loan

¶76

OA 2282/2024

¶77

¶78

A4	30.07.2022	On Demand
A5	30.07.2022	Common Term Agreement
A6	30.07.2022	Affidavit cum undertaking
A7	30.07.2022	RBLR (Repo Based Lending Rate) Agreement
A8	30.07.2022	Special power of attorney
A9	30.07.2022	Agreement RBI IRACP Norms
A10	30.07.2022	Bearer Letter
A11	30.07.2022	Installment Letter
A12	22.08.2024	Notice U/s 13(2)
A13	03.08.2022	Registered Memorandum of deposit of title deeds
A14	16.08.2022	Personal loan application
A15	03.09.2022	Sanction letter
A16	16.08.2022	Term loan agreement
A17	16.08.2022	On demand
A18	16.08.2022	Common Term Agreement
A19	16.08.2022	Affidavit cum undertaking
A20	16.08.2022	RBLR (Repo Based Lending Rate) Agreement
A21	16.08.2022	Special power of attorney
A22	16.08.2022	Agreement RBI IRACP Norms
A23	16.08.2022	Bearer Letter
A24	16.08.2022	Installment Letter
A25	--	Certified statement of account
A26	--	Certified statement of account

¶79

Witness Examined for the Defendant:

¶80

DW-1: Pavithra, Defendant.

¶81

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant:

¶82

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
D1	--	Inspection report

¶83

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of India v. Pavithra E

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Pavithra E

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

Bank of Baroda versus Radhakrishnan

Anil Kumawat versus Tata Capital Housing Fiannce Ltd.

M S Wasan Shoes Ltd. versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Ms Kritima Fuel Service and Ors.

Sadhana Anup Patil versus Icici Home Finance Company Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Shri Sahib Ram