Allowed

State Bank of India v. Kiran

DRT24 Jul 2026OA/443/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India seeking issuance of a recovery certificate against two defendants for a housing loan default. The defendants appeared ex parte. The court admitted evidence, affirmed the default, and ordered recovery of the due amount with reduced interest.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 40,07,094/- with future interest @ 8% p.a. (simple), executable against schedule property. Costs awarded to applicant.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 24^th Day of July 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.443/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

State Bank of India RACPC Lalbagh, No:73, 1^st Floor, Lal Bagh Main Rd, Sudhama Nagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560027.

¶7

… APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri.Kiran Thatipamula

¶10

S/o.Rajendhar Thatipamula, No:3-87, Pochamma Wada

¶11

Raikal Karim Nagar,

¶12

Andhra Pradesh-505460.

¶13

M/s.Vasundhara Builders

¶14

A Partnership Firm, Represented by its Partner Mr.Anil G.Manakame S/o.Sri.Ganapathi Manakame No:286/A, 9^th Main, 7^th Cross, Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore-560019. ...DEFENDANTS

¶15

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶16

Applicant : Mr.Sachin.P.Bichu Defendant : Exparte

¶17

2 OA No.443/2022

¶18

: FINAL ORDER:

¶19

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.40,07,094/(Rupees Forty Lakhs Seven Thousand Ninety-Four Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶20

The Defendant No.1 availed housing loan for Rs. 67,96,296/(Rupees Sixty-Seven Lakhs Ninety-Six Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety-Six Only) for purchase of Flat. The Defendant No.2 has executed Sale Agreement in favour of Defendant No.1.

¶21

The Defendant No.1 have also received the loan amount sanctioned, subject to the terms and conditions of Tripartite Agreement entered between Applicant Bank and the Defendants.

¶22

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facility, the defendant executed necessary loan documents. Apart from the creation of security interest by way of mortgage, Guarantee Agreement, Demand Promissory Note and hypothecation over the Schedule property.

¶23

3 OA No.443/2022

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 26.02.2025.

¶27

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 A9 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶28

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.

¶29

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶30

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

¶31

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶32

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶33

4 OA No.443/2022

¶34

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained exparte. The evidence tendered by the applicant remains uncontroverted and undisputed. The evidences put forth by the applicant were found admissible and are sufficient to prove availment of credit facility 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.

¶35

Hence in view of the above findings which cover both the issues raised in this manner, this Tribunal is of the view that OA is liable to be allowed.

¶36

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was 13. availed for Housing Loan and also that OA claim is arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal in view of the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 8.00% p.a.(simple).

¶37

In the result, OA.No.443/2022 stands allowed,

¶38

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs.40,07,094/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Seven Thousand Ninety-Four Only) along with current and future interest @ 8% from the date of filing the application till the date of realization, from the defendants, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of

¶39

5 OA No.443/2022

¶40

the OA if any, and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against

¶41

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

¶42

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the

¶43

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant No.1 and

¶44

his other assets are liable for all such amounts due in loan accounts.

¶45

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding which

¶46

applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.

¶47

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

¶48

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶49

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

¶50

this Final Order.

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

Rules, 1993.

¶54

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

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(T.RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶57

6 OA No.443/2022

¶58

ANNEXURES

¶59

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶60

AW-1: Sri. Mr. Syed Md.Eliyas, Branch Head of the applicant bank.

¶61

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶62

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Date	Exhibit Number
1.	Arrangement Letter executed by Defendant No.1	29.12.2020	A1
2.	Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Home Loan Granted to Public executed by Defendant No.1	29.12.2020	A2
3.	Agreement to Mortgagee executed by Defendant No.1	29.12.2020	A3
4.	Agreement of sale	14.10.2020	A4
5.	Tripartite Agreement executed by Defendant No1 and 2	20.10.2020	A5
6.	Legal Notice	112.11.2021	A6
7.	Postal Receipts	15.11.2021	A7
8.	Postal Acknowledgements		A8
9.	Account Statement (A/c No.39903436908)	09.11.2021	A9

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Kiran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Kiran

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

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