Allowed

State Bank of India v. C a Bheemaiah Now Dead Rep by LRs Smt Parvathi

DRT24 Jul 2026OA/457/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicants OA claiming recovery of Rs. 1.01 Crore from the legal heirs of a deceased borrower. The court noted the credit facilities were for agricultural purposes and granted the OA with interest reduced to 6.0% simple.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of Recovery Certificate for Rs. 1,01,03,366 recoverable from schedule property and inherited assets with reduced interest of 6% simple.

State Bank of India versus C a Bheemaiah Now Dead Rep by LRs… — 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.457/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

State Bank of India Branch office at: Virajpet, Branch

¶7

Represented by its Chief Manager …APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. C A Bheemaiah

¶10

S/o. Appaiah

¶11

(Since deceased, Rep by his LRs)

¶12

1(a). Smt. Parvathi @ Rani Bheemaiah W/o. late C A Bheemaiah

¶13

Aged about 62 years

¶14

1(b). Smt. Anusha C Bheemaiah D/o. late C A Bheemaiah

¶15

Aged about 33 years

¶16

Both R/at: Gowri Estate, PB no. 199,

¶17

Kutta, Virajpet Taluk,

¶18

Kodagu Dist. – 571 250 ...DEFENDANTS

¶19

OA. No. 457/2022

¶20

¶21

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶22

Applicant : K S Venkataramana Defendant nos.1(a & b) : Ex parte Defendant no.1 : Deceased

¶23

FINAL ORDER

¶24

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. 1,01,03,366/- (Rupees One Crore One Lakhs Three Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty-Six Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶25

It is the case of the applicant that, the defendants no. 1(a & b) are the legal heirs of the deceased borrower Sri. C A Bheemaiah, who expired during the pendency of OA have availed the following credit facilities:

¶26

KCC loan of Rs. 24,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Four Only) for the purpose of cultivation of crops.

¶27

ATL of Rs. 26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Six Lakhs Only) for the purpose of construction of labour shed and godown.

¶28

ATL of Rs. 16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Only).

¶29

OA. No. 457/2022

¶30

¶31

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above financed credit facilities, the deceased borrower Sri. C A Bheemaiah, executed necessary loan documents. Apart from the creation of security interest by way of Registered mortgage deed and hypothecation agreement over the schedule property.

¶32

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facilities, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, borrower failed in complying the same, resulting in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts as NPA.

¶33

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.

¶34

Despite, entering appearance/filing vakalat, no written statement filed. Hence, the defendants remained absent.

¶35

The applicant let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A1 to A20 and got the same marked in evidence. 8. 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

OA. No. 457/2022

¶37

¶38

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶39

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

¶40

ii) What orders are to be passed?

¶41

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶42

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application remains unrebutted as defendants remained ex parte. 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 facilities 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.

¶43

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.

¶44

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶45

are availed for Agricultural purpose and also that the OA claim is

¶46

OA. No. 457/2022

¶47

¶48

arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, this Tribunal

¶49

is the view that the OA can be allowed with a reduced interest of 6.00% (simple).

¶50

In the result, OA.No.457/2022 stands allowed,

¶51

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum

¶52

of Rs. 1,01,03,366/- (Rupees One Crore One Lakhs Three Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty-Six Only) from the defendants,

¶53

to the extent of their inheritance of any estate of deceased borrower Late Sri. C A Bheemaiah, after giving credit to all the amount recovered and be recovered by proceeding against the schedule property. The schedule property to the OA be the schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶54

ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants to the extent of their inherited form the deceased Sri. C A Bheemaiah, is liable to the proceeds against for the balance amount.

¶55

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceeding

¶56

which applicant to file cost memo within 7 days from the date of

¶57

OA. No. 457/2022

¶58

¶59

receipt of the order.

¶60

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

¶61

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶62

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

¶63

with this Final Order.

¶64

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in

¶65

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

¶66

DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶67

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

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶70

ANNEXURES WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶71

AW-1 G Ajay Kumar, S/o. G Ramesh Babu, Chief Manager, of the applicant bank.

¶72

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶73

Annexure	Particulars
A1	Registered power of attorney dated 09.03.2016
A2	Copy of the application dated 23.03.2016
A3	Copy of the sanction letter dated 23.03.2016
A4	Copyof the hypothecation agreement dt. 22.03.2016
A5	Copyof theguarantee agreement dt. 22.03.2016

¶74

OA. No. 457/2022

¶75

¶76

A6	Copyof the application dated 11.04.2016
A7	Copyof the sanction letter dated 11.04.2016
A8	Copies of hypothecation agreement dt. 11.04.2016
A9	Copyof the reg. mortgage deed dated 10.03.2016
A10	Copyof the application dated 31.03.2018
A11	Copyof the sanction letter dated 31.03.2018
A12	Copyof the hypothecation agreement dt. 31.03.2018
A13	Copyof the reg. mortgage deed dated 31.03.2018
A14	Copyof the legal notice 28.01.2022
A15	Originalpostal receipt RC
A16	Copyof the legal notice 02.02.2022
A17	Originalpostal receipts acknowledgements
A18	Copyof the statement of loan A/c. 356542321158
A19	Copyof the statement of loan A/c. 35708634627
A20	Copyof the statement of loan A/c. 37625494826
Witness E	xamined for the Defendants: -Nil -
List of Doc	uments Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil -

¶77

Sd/-

¶78

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. C a Bheemaiah Now Dead Rep by LRs Smt Parvathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. C a Bheemaiah Now Dead Rep by LRs Smt Parvathi

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