Allowed

State Bank of India v. Srikanth S v Meka

DRT27 Mar 2026OA/543/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993. Being heard ex-parte, the Tribunal accepted the bank's evidence proving the loan default and issued a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 26,34,400 with interest, directing recovery from the defendants and their assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery Certificate issued for Rs. 26,34,400 with interest @6.90% p.a. from date of filing till realization to be recovered from defendants and their assets.

State Bank of India versus Srikanth S v Meka — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 27^th Day of March, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer OA.No.543/2022

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

State Bank of India, RACPC, Koramangala Branch Address at: No.12, 3^rd Floor, 7^th Main, 3^rd Block,

¶6

Koramangala, Bengaluru- 560034

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Mr. Srikanth S.V Meka

¶10

S/o. Sri. Meka Chiranjeevi Rao R/at: B-202, Silver country Apartment, Off Harlur Road, Kudlu, Near KSRP Camp, Bommanahalli, Benglauru- 560068

¶11

M/s Vivansaa Baalsam (Firm) Registered office at: No.88, First Floor 17^th Cross, 14^th Main, IV Sector, HSR Layout, Bangalore- 560034

¶12

...DEFENDANTS

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : R.N.S.P Achanta Defendants : Exparte

OA 543/2022

FINAL ORDER

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 Rs.26,34,400/- (Rupees twenty six lakh thirty four thousand four hundred only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendants.

¶19

It is the case of the applicant that the defendant No.1 is the borrower and defendant No.2 is the developer. The defendant No.1 availed the Housing loan credit facilities of Rs.26,49,000/(Rupees twenty six lakh forty nine thousand only) from the applicant bank.

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above amount financed, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with agreement to mortgage, deed of undertaking in favor of the applicant bank. Later, the both the defendants entered into Tripartite agreement on 21.10.2019 with the Applicant bank.

¶21

It is further contended that, the defendants despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan account promptly and regularly, failed in complying the same, resulting

¶22

OA 543/2022

¶23

¶24

in defaults in repayment and consequentially turning the loan accounts 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 28.11.2025.

¶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 A-1 to A-7 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 the proof affidavit.

¶29

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶30

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the

¶31

OA claim as against the defendant?

¶32

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶33

OA 543/2022

¶34

¶35

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶36

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application

¶37

remains unrebutted as defendant 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 facilities as stated in the OA and execution of Tripartite agreement agreeing creation of security interest as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendants and the claim as the amount due

¶38

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

¶39

Hence in view of the finding arrived herein above, this Tribunal find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence this Tribunal is of the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶40

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities

¶41

are availed by defendant for Housing Purpose, this Tribunal in view of the rate of interest as claimed need not be reduced.

¶42

However, as the OA Claim is arrived at by calculating interest at

¶43

OA 543/2022

¶44

¶45

the agreed rate and also by applying default interest, the prayer

¶46

for monthly rest and future penal interest are declined.

¶47

In the result, OA.No.543/2022, stands allowed,

¶48

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate

¶49

sum of Rs.26,34,400/- (Rupees twenty six lakh thirty four thousand four hundred only) with further interest @6.90% p.a. (Simple),

¶50

from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly severally and personally after giving credit to all the amount recovered and received during the pendency of the OA and allowed the same to be recovered by proceedings against the schedule property. Properties schedule to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶51

(ii) If the sale proceeds are not sufficient, the defendants jointly severally and personally and their other assets are liable to be proceeded against for the balance amount.

¶52

iii) The applicant bank is allowed cost of the proceedings

¶53

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

¶54

OA 543/2022

¶55

¶56

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

¶57

order and transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶58

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

¶59

in terms of this final order.

¶60

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶61

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

¶62

of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶63

[Dictated to the Stenographer (JV), transcribed by him, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 27^th day of March, 2026].

¶64

Sd/(T. RAJESH)

¶65

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶66

ANNEXURES

¶67

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶68

AW-1: Jayalakshmi. M, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank.

¶69

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶70

Exhibit	Date	Particulars of Documents
Nos.
A1	18.10.2019	Arrangement letter subject to certain terms and conditions is issued by Applicant’s RACPC-Koramangala, Bangalore and the same is acknowledged by D1 with application
A2	21.10.2019	Copy of memorandum of loan agreement for housing loan executed by D1
A3	21.10.2019	Copy of agreement to mortgage executed by D1 over proposed purchase of flat described as schedule property D2

¶71

OA 543/2022

¶72

¶73

A4	21.10.2019	Copy of deed of undertaking with cancellation letter and affidavit
A5	17.09.2019	Copy of agreement executed by D2 in favor of the D1 and furnished to the applicant
A6	21.10.2019	Copy of Tripartite Agreement executed by defendants with applicant towards the undertakings agreed to ensure refund of the loan amount, if the sale deed did not take place, for any reason
A7		Copies of statement/s of Account/s duly certified under the Banker’s Books of Evidence Act, by the Applicant in respect of the Applicant’s Total claim as debt due from defendants

¶74

Witness Examined for the Defendant: -Nil - List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendant: -Nil -

¶75

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Srikanth S v Meka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Srikanth S v Meka

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

State Bank of India versus Rajendrakumar Jain

Inno Infra Pvt. Ltd. and 9 Others versus Indian Overseas Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Rajdeepsinh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Sher Singh

Punjab Gramin Bank versus Smt. Jaswinder Kaur

Hdfc Bank versus Ms Bandhav Filling Centre