Allowed

State Bank of India v. Anjali Manaktala Rohan

DRT24 Jul 2026OA/395/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for a Recovery Certificate against two defendants. The court found the loan documents and defaults uncontroverted and awarded recovery of principal, interest at 7.40% p.a., and costs.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 89,08,492/- with future interest at 7.40% p.a. (simple), allowing recovery from joint assets and mortgage property.

State Bank of India versus Anjali Manaktala Rohan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of July, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.395/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Office at No. 11/90, 3^rd Floor, Near Old Shivaji Theater, J. C. Road, Bengaluru -560002, Rep. by its Authorized Officer,

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Smt. Anjali Manaktala Rohan, W/o. Rohan Talwar, Flat No. S-04, 2^nd Floor, Sai Krupa Vestaa Homes, Sy No. 16/2, Halanayakanahalli, VarthurHobli, Bengaluru -560035.

¶10

Also at:

¶11

(i) 4/40, Nunhailkatra, Farrukabad, Uttar Pradesh- 209625.

¶12

(ii) Associates ID-165272, Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., 5/535, Okkiyam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakam, Chennai -600097.

¶13

(iii) Associate ID -165272, Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Bagmane Tech Park, C. V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru -560093.

¶14

Sri. Rohan Talwar Navin Talwar, S/o. Navin Talwar,

¶15

OA 395/2022

¶16

¶17

Flat No. S-04, 2^nd Floor, Saikrupa Vestaa Homes, Sy No. 16/2, Halanayakanahalli, VarthurHobli, Bengaluru -560035.

¶18

Also at:

¶19

(i) C991, Sector-B4, Mahanagar, Lucknow -226006, Uttar Pradesh.

¶20

(ii) Account Executive PDS Premiere Conferencing Pvt. Ltd., 117, EPIP Phase-1, 3, Suite 3NW Bengaluru -560066.

¶21

...DEFENDANTS

¶22

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶23

Applicant : Nandish Patil & Praveen Patel Defendants : Ex parte

¶24

FINAL ORDER

¶25

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. 89,08,492/- (Rupees eighty-nine lakh eight thousand four hundred and ninety-two only) with further interest thereon and cost from the Defendants.

¶26

It is the case of the Applicant that Defendants, availed a Housing loan of Rs. 65,00,000/- (Rupees sixty-five lakh only) for purchase of schedule ‘A’ property and Loan for life insurance premium of Rs. 2,80,000/- (Rupees two lakh eighty thousand only) in such total a sum of Rs. 67,80,000/- (Rupees sixty-seven lakh eighty thousand only).

¶27

It is also the case of the Applicant that, in view of the above loan,

¶28

OA 395/2022

¶29

¶30

the Defendants executed necessary loan documents in favour of the Applicant bank to secure the loan and also had created mortgage over the schedule property.

¶31

It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendants, despite availing the credit facility, after agreeing with the Terms and Conditions for the loan, failed in complying with the same, resulting in defaults and consequentially turning the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

¶32

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.

¶33

Despite service of summons, Defendants failed to enter appearance. Accordingly, they were called absent and were set ex parte on 30.01.2026.

¶34

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 A9, got the same marked in evidence.

¶35

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.

¶36

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶37

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

¶38

OA 395/2022

¶39

¶40

against the Defendants?

¶41

ii) If so, to what extent?

¶42

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶43

The case put forth by the Applicant in the Application remains unrebutted. The evidence tendered by the Applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidence put forth by the Applicant is found admissible and are sufficient to prove the averments made in the OA, and the defaults committed by the Defendants in repaying the loan amount due. The liability of the Defendants and the loan amount due are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the Applicant is well within the limitation.

¶44

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

¶45

Taking into consideration the fact that the loan is availed is

¶46

housing 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 as prayed in the OA with simple interest. The prayer for interest with monthly rests and for penal interest for the future period is hereby declined.

¶47

In the result, OA.No.395/2022, is allowed,

¶48

OA 395/2022

¶49

¶50

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

¶51

89,08,492/- (Rupees eighty-nine lakh eight thousand four hundred and ninety-two only) with pendente lite and future interest of 7.40% p.a. (simple) from 29.03.2022 till the realization, from the Defendants jointly, severally and 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 proceedings against schedule property. Property schedule to the OA be the schedule to the Recovery Certificate.

¶52

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to clear the loan

¶53

amount due from Defendants jointly, severally and personally then the Applicant bank is at liberty to proceeded against their other assets for the recovery of the balance due.

¶54

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings for

¶55

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

¶56

iv) The Recovery Certificate to be drawn in terms of this order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶57

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

¶58

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶59

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

¶60

OA 395/2022

¶61

¶62

(Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶63

(Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24^th day of July, 2026).

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

(T. RAJESH)

¶66

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶67

ANNEXURES

¶68

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶69

AW-1: Sri. Mahesh Kumar C, Authorized Officer of Applicant Bank.

¶70

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶71

Exhibit Nos.	Date	Particulars of Documents
A1	04.02.2016	Sanction letter
A2	06.02.2016	Memorandum of Term Loan Agreement
A3	06.02.2016	Deed of Undertaking
A4	08.02.2016	Memorandum relating to deposit of title
A5	19.02.2019	Demand Notice
A6	29.04.2019	Possession Notice
A7	23.03.2022	Legal notice
A8	--	Statement of account
A9	--	Certificate under Banker’s Books Evidence Act, 1891

¶72

Witness Examined for the Defendants: List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

¶73

-Nil -

¶74

-Nil -

¶75

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Anjali Manaktala Rohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Anjali Manaktala Rohan

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kaushelendra Pratap others versus Grihum Housing Finance Limited

Ms Lakshya Textiles Agency versus Uco Bank

Ms Maxx Metal Pvt. Ltd. and Others versus Indian Overseas Bank

Gireesh Chand Garg versus Punjab National Bank

Rohit Jaiswal versus Canara Bank

Smt Alka and Another versus Canara Bank