Allowed

State Bank of India v. Lakshmanan

DRT7 Jul 2026OA/362/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues totaling Rs.35,04,200.78 and interest from the defaulting borrower on an agricultural overdraft facility.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.35,04,200.78 plus interest at 12.25% p.a. and penal interest up to realization, with liberty to sell the mortgaged property.

State Bank of India versus Lakshmanan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

O.A. No. 362 of 2024

¶2

07.07.2026

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 07^th day of July, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 362 of 2024

¶8

State Bank of India, SARB II, Chennai No.44, Eldams Road, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018 Represented by its Dy. Manager. ….Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

Mr. B. Lakshmanan S/o Balasubramanian No.300, Vadukathirumedu Kavarapattu Post, Cuddalore, Tamilnadu-608 002. …..Defendant

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : Sh. S. Vaidyanathan

¶13

Defendants were set ex-parte on 24.02.2025

¶14

: - FINAL ORDER - :

¶15

This original application is filed on 26.02.2024 by the Applicant Bank under Section 19 (1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (formerly Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) against the Defendant, for recovery of a total sum of Rs.35,04,200.78p (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Four Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Eight Paise only) due in respect of Asset Backed Agri Loan (Overdraft) (Account No.37763864277) repayable together with further interest @ 12.25% p.a. with half yearly

¶16

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 15:00 hrs

¶17

O.A. No. 362 of 2024

¶18

¶19

07.07.2026

¶20

rests plus penal interest @ 2% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing the OA, till date of realization in full, for sale of immovable property more fully

¶21

detailed in Schedule to the OA, and for costs of this application.

¶22

Brief Facts of the case:

¶23

The Applicant submits that the application is filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 24 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, and the subject recovery claim falls within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

¶24

It is the case of the applicant bank that the Defendants had applied to the Applicant Bank at RACC Chidambaram, for an Agri Backed Loan of Rs.24.50 lakhs for the Agriculture Land Development vide Application dated 18.06.2018. Considering the said request, the applicant bank had sanctioned the loan of Rs.24,50,000.00 to the defendant on 18.06.2018, for which the Defendants had executed the following documents on

¶25

18.06.2018 in favour of the Applicant:

¶26

i. Letter of Arrangement

¶27

ii. Demand Promissory note

¶28

iii. Hypothecation Agreement

¶29

iv. Affidavit for utilization of the loan for the purpose

¶30

sanctioned

¶31

The applicant submits that the facility was sanctioned as an Overdraft Facility to be repaid in a period of 72 months, with interest at the rate of 10.25% per annum and the Defendants had agreed to route all the

¶32

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 15:00 hrs

¶33

O.A. No. 362 of 2024

¶34

¶35

07.07.2026

¶36

proceeds of agriculture through his account, with the Bank.

¶37

It is submitted that in order to secure the loan, the Defendant on 22.06.2018 had deposited the Title deeds dated 09.06.2005 registered as Doc.no. 1746/2005 with the applicant bank, and had executed Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 06.07.2018 registered as Doc.no.2183/2018 with SRO, Chidambaram, Jt. I, for the property mentioned in the OA Schedule, as security for the loan availed by him.

¶38

The applicant bank submits that after availing the Agricultural Asset Backed Loan, the Defendant has not honoured the terms of the Agreement and has not carried out the activity in terms of the agreement and has not routed the proceeds of business through their account with the Bank.

¶39

The Applicant had sent various reminders to the Defendant to regularize the loan, but no response was received from the Defendant. The loan was therefore classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) as per RBI Norms on 31.12.2022. The Defendant had executed Revival letter dated 16/06/2021 extending the validity of the loan documents and confirming the securities in the account.

¶40

The applicant bank has issued Demand Notice dated 15.06.2023 to the defendants under the SARFAESI Act, but the defendants have not come forward to repay their dues. Hence, the present Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicant bank for recovery of its dues from the defendant.

¶41

After the filing of the OA, summons were sent to the Defendant

¶42

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 15:00 hrs

¶43

O.A. No. 362 of 2024

¶44

07.07.2026

¶45

¶46

through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due, summons to sole defendant returned unserved with postal endorsement as ‘refused’, which is deemed service. When OA was taken up on 24.02.2025 even after giving sufficient time, there was no appearance or representation from the defendant. Hence, defendant was placed ex-parte on 24.02.2025.

¶47

Heard the submissions of Applicant Bank and perused the records.

¶48

To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, Sh. Jitin Anto, City Case Officer, SARB-II, Chennai of the Applicant Bank, has filed his Affidavit by way of evidence and same was considered as evidence of AW-1 and list of documents came to be marked as Ex A-1 to A-13 .

¶49

A careful examination of the pleadings in the Proof Affidavit and documents Exhibits A-1 to A-13 evidence that the borrowal of credit facilities and execution of loan and security documents are true, in terms of averments made in Original Application as well as Proof Affidavit filed by applicant bank establishing its claim. Applicant bank filed Statement of Accounts duly certified under Bankers’ Book Evidence Act, evidencing the amount claimed against defendants

¶50

The defendant was set ex-parte on 24.02.2025, but till this day he did not take any action to set aside the ex-parte order and did not choose to contest the claim. Further, a careful scrutiny of records makes it clear that present application is filed well within limitation and this Tribunal possesses necessary and proper jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the

¶51

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 15:00 hrs

¶52

O.A. No. 362 of 2024

¶53

07.07.2026

¶54

¶55

claim. No oral or documentary evidence on the side of defendants are produced or filed to dispute the claim of applicant bank. Hence, it can be concluded that applicant bank has proved its claim against defendant.

¶56

With regard to the amount advanced, the interest applied, the conduct and operations in the account and the default committed, this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the applicant bank is entitled for a final order on the following terms:

¶57

: O R D E R :

¶58

The OA is allowed with costs,

¶59

(a) The applicant bank is allowed to recover from the Defendant, a total sum of Rs.35,04,200.78p (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Four Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Eight Paise only) due in respect of Asset Backed Agri Loan (Overdraft) (Account No.37763864277) repayable together with further interest @ 12.25% p.a. with half yearly rests plus penal interest @ 2% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing the OA, till date of realization in full, along with costs.

¶60

(b) In the event of failure of the Defendants to pay the aforesaid amount, the bank is at liberty to recover the amount by sale of the schedule mentioned immovable property.

¶61

¶62

(d) The applicant bank shall file the latest memo of calculation of

¶63

OA amount together with interest, costs etc., to be paid by the

¶64

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 15:00 hrs

¶65

O.A. No. 362 of 2024

¶66

07.07.2026

¶67

¶68

Defendant duly considering the amounts, if any, paid by the Defendant and/or amount realized by sale of assets etc., during the intervening period after the filing of the OA, enabling the Registry to prepare Recovery Certificate for the amount to be paid by Defendant to the applicant bank.

¶69

(e) The applicant bank shall file memo of costs within ten days from

¶70

the date of receipt of this final order.

¶71

(f) Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the

¶72

Recovery Officer in terms of the final order.

¶73

A copy of this order be communicated to the parties concerned.

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶76

(Dictated to Steno (Suriya), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 07^th day of July, 2026)

¶77

ANNEXURES

¶78

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK :

¶79

AW-1: Sh. Jitin Anto, City Case Officer, SARB-II, Chennai of the Applicant Bank.

¶80

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶81

Sl.	Description of Documents	Exhibit No.
No.
1.	Loan Application dated 18.06.2018.	A-1
2.	Letter of arrangement dated 18.06.2018.	A-2
3.	Demand Promissory note dated 18.06.2018.	A-3

¶82

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 15:00 hrs

¶83

O.A. No. 362 of 2024

¶84

07.07.2026

¶85

¶86

4.	Hypothecation agreement dated 18.06.2018.	A-4
5.	Standing instruction dated 18.06.2018.	A-5
6.	Affidavit of Defendant dated 18.06.2018.	A-6
7.	MOD executed by defendant registered as Doc.No.2183/2018 dated 06.07.2018.	A-7
8.	Sale deed in favour of Defendant registered as Doc.No.1746/2005 with SRO, Chidambaram dated 09.06.2005.	A-8
9.	Confirmation deed executed by Jayakrishna and others registered as Doc.No.2773/2017 dated 23.10.2017.	A-9
10.	Notice by applicant to defendant dated 04.11.2019.	A-10
11.	Revival Letter dated 16.06.2021.	A-11
12.	Demand Notice dated 15.06.2023.	A-12
13.	Statement of OD account No.37763864277 from 18.06.2018 to 30.01.2024.	A-13

¶87

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil-

¶88

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil –

¶89

:- SCHEDULE -:

¶90

Chidambaram Registration District, Chidambaram Sub Registration District, Chidambaram Taluk, Karapattu Village, in Ayan Nanjai R.S.No.26/2 an extent of 0.81 cents (0.32.5 ares) and the RCC Terraced residential building constructed within it with all basic amenities.

¶91

Boundaries

¶92

South and West of Vaikkal

¶93

North of Meenatchi Ammal and Paramanandam Nanjai

¶94

East of Meenatchi Ammal Nanjai Land.

¶95

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶96

Uploaded on 07.07.2026 at 15:00 hrs

State Bank of India v. Lakshmanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Lakshmanan

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

Punjab National Bank versus Raju

Canara Bank versus Red Sun International

Bank of Maharashtra versus Iyappan

Samsudeen versus Canara Bank

Bothiramakrishnan versus Indian Overseas Bank

Dr.PrakashKarrun and Dr.Veena Singh versus Idbi Bank