Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Laxmi Narasimha Silk Industry

DRT31 Jul 2026OA/513/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Applicant's Original Application for a Recovery Certificate against Defendants who defaulted on a term loan. The Defendants were absent, making the evidence unrebutted. The order granted recovery of the principal amount at a reduced interest rate of 10% p.a. and ordered recovery from schedule property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate directed against the defendants and their assets for Rs. 23,36,968/- plus interest at 10% p.a. from the date of filing till realization.

State Bank of India versus Sri Laxmi Narasimha Silk Industry — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 31^th Day of July 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA. No.513/2025

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

State Bank of India Asset Recovery Management Branch, 2^nd Floor, A Block, BKG Complex, Mysore Bank Circle, Bangalore-560009.

¶7

… APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Laxmi Narasimha Silk Industry, by its Proprietor

¶10

Smt.Padmamma,

¶11

W/o.M.Venkatappa,

¶12

No.867/1, 7^th Cross,

¶13

Jayanagar, Vemagal Branch,

¶14

Kolar Taluk & District-563101

¶15

Sri.M. Venkatappa S/o.Muniyappa, Ward No.15, Harohalli, Kolar Town-563101. ...DEFENDANTS

¶16

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶17

Applicant : M.R.Shantha Kumari Defendant : Exparte

¶18

2 OA No.513/2025

¶19

: FINAL ORDER:

¶20

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.23,36,968/(Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs Thirty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred and SixtyEight Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶21

The Defendant No.1 availed Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Only) for grant of renewal of Working Capital Term Loan of “ Multi End Silk Reeling” The 2^nd Defendant has stood as a Guarantor for 1^st Defendant.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

3 OA No.513/2025

¶26

Despite, service of summons on the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 12.02.2026.

¶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 A18 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

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

¶34

4 OA No.513/2025

¶35

are also proved by the above documents. The claim of the applicant is well within the limitation.

¶36

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.

¶37

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was availed for business purpose 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 as prayed in OA.

¶38

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facility was availed for business purpose 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 10.00% p.a.(simple).

¶39

In the result, OA.No.513/2025 stands allowed.

¶40

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of for Rs.23,36,968/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs Thirty-Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty-Eight Only) along with current and future interest of 10% 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 the OA if any, and allowed the same to be recovered by proceeding against the schedule property. The schedule property to the OA be the schedule property to the Recovery Certificate.

¶41

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

¶42

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the respective defendants

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

this Final Order.

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

Rules, 1993.

¶52

[Dictated to the Stenographer (GS), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 31^th Day of July 2026].

¶53

6 OA No.513/2025

¶54

ANNEXURES

¶55

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶56

AW-1: Sri.Rajendra S.Tenginakari, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank.

¶57

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶58

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Exhibit Number
1.	Letter of Arrangement dated 03.07.2013	A1
2.	D.P. Note Delivery Letter Dated 03.07.2013	A2
3.	Guarantee Agreement Dated 03.07.2013	A3
4.	Loan Agreement Executed by the 1^stDefendant in favour of the Applicant Bank.	A4
5.	Loan Agreement Executed by the 2^ndDefendant in favour of the applicant Bank.	A5
6.	Revival Letter Executed by the 1^stDefendant in favour of the Applicant Bank.	A6
7.	Revival Letter executed by the 1^stDefendant in favour of the Applicant Bank	A7
8.	Link Letter Executed by the Defendants in Favour of the Applicant Bank	A8
9.	Agreement of Loan-cum-Hypothecation Executed by the 1^stDefendant on 03.07.2013	A9
10.	Mortgage Deed dated 02.07.2013 Executed by the Defendant in favour of the Applicant Bank in respect of Suit Schedule Property	A10
11.	Revival Letter dated 09.07.2014 Executed by the 1^st Defendant	A11
12.	Link Letter dated 09.07.2014 Executed by the 1^st Defendant	A12
13.	Letter of arrangement dated 09.07.2014 executed by the 1^stDefendant	A13
14.	Revival Letter Dated 09.07.2014 executed by the 1^st Defendant	A14
15.	Statement of products dated 09.07.2014 furnished by the 1^stDefendant	A15

¶59

7 OA No.513/2025

¶60

16.	Mortgage Deed dated 27.05.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the applicant bank in respect of suit scheduleproperty.	A16
	Copy of the Demand Notice dated 10.03.2017 issued
17.	under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act to the	A17
	Defendants in respect of Suit Schedule Property
18.	Certified Statement of Loan No.641214216.	A18

¶61

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Sri Laxmi Narasimha Silk Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Laxmi Narasimha Silk Industry

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

Canara Bank versus Ms Kalka Packaging

Hdfc Bank versus M/S Fine Line Retails Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Ramappa G Khanagoudar

Mrs Azaz Fatima versus Hero Housing Finance Limited

M/s Pannalal Associates versus Anand Rathi Global Finance Limited

Ranjana Sharma versus Icici Bank Limited