Allowed

State Bank of India v. Bhima Hanamanth Hulasadar

DRT20 Aug 2026OA/642/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application for a recovery certificate. The Tribunal found the defendant in default on agricultural loans. It awarded a reduced interest rate of 6% per annum personally recoverable from the defendant and attachable against schedule properties, dismissing the objection of default appearance and affirming the claim's validity.

What did the court decide?

Recovery certificate issued for Rs. 69,67,039/- with further interest at 6% p.a. (simple) from filing date, recoverable personally and against schedule property.

State Bank of India versus Bhima Hanamanth Hulasadar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 20^th Day of August, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.642/2024

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

State Bank of India Sri. Siddeshwar Road, Athani, Belagaum, District. Represented by its Chief Manager Sri. Raghavendra Acharya.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Bhima Hanumanth hulasadar S/o Sri. Hanamanth Hulasadar Aged about 73 years, R/o Radderhatti Village, Athani Taluq, Belagaum District-591 240. ...DEFENDANTS

¶10

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶11

Applicant : G. N. Sathyamurthy Defendants : Exparte

¶12

FINAL ORDER

¶13

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 against the defendants for Rs. 28,27,672/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Two Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application

¶14

2 642/2024

¶15

till realization.

¶16

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants availed the following credit facilities from the applicant bank:-

¶17

I. KCC Facility of a sum of Rs. 8,10,000/- (Rupees Five lakh Only) on 26.02.2016.

¶18

II. ATL -I Facility of sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) on 26.02.2016.

¶19

III. ATL -II Facility of sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) on 14.10.2016.

¶20

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendant executed necessary loan documents along with Hypothecation Agreement, Mortgage Deed, Encumbrance Certificate.

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

Despite, taking out summons the defendant failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 20.12.2024.

¶24

The applicant had let in evidence through AW-1, who filed Proof

¶25

3 642/2024

¶26

Affidavit reiterating the contentions taken in the OA and also produced Exhibits A-1 to A-23 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶27

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.

¶28

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶29

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

¶30

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶31

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶32

The case put forth by the applicant in the Application 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, creation of Mortgage and Hypothecation as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults committed in the accounts. The liability of the defendant and the claim of

¶33

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

¶34

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal

¶35

4 642/2024

¶36

find both these issues in favour of applicant and hence, this Tribunal is of

¶37

the view that OA is to be allowed.

¶38

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities was

¶39

availed for Agricultural purpose and also that the 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 6.00% (simple).

¶40

In the result, OA.No.642/2024, stands allowed,

¶41

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 69,67,039/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand Thirty Nine Only) with further interest @6.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendant 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 proceeding against schedule property. Schedule Properties to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶42

ii) If the sale proceeds are not found sufficient to cover the amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant personally and his assets are liable for the amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

5 642/2024

¶46

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

¶47

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶48

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

¶49

of this final order.

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

Rules, 1993.

¶53

[Dictated to the Stenographer (DV), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 20^th Day of August, 2026].

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

(T. RAJESH)

¶56

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶57

ANNEXURES

¶58

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶59

AW-1: Sarvesh B, Manager of the applicant Bank

¶60

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶61

Annexure	Date	List of Documents
A1	26.2.2016	Application for Loan
A2	26.2.2016	Sanction Letter
A3	26.2.2016	Hypothecation agreement
A4	26.2.2016	Application for Loan
A5	26.2.2016	Sanction Letter
A6	26.2.2016	Hypothecation Agreement
A7	26.2.2016	Mortgage Deed
A8	26.2.2016	Encumbrance Certificate

¶62

6 642/2024

¶63

A9	02.02.2022	Revival Letter
A10	14.10.2016	Application for Loan
A11	--	Sanction Letter
A12	14.10.2016	Hypothecation Agreement
A13	14.10.2016	Mortgage Deed
A14	14.10.2016	Encumbrance Certificate
A15	03.11.2023	Illiterate Borrower
A16	03.11.2023	Legal Notice
A17	--	Postal Acknowledgement
A18	19.04.2023	Certificate Accounts Extract
A19	19.04.2023	Certificate Accounts Extract
A20	19.04.2023	Certificate Accounts Extract
A21	6.02.2024	Account Closure Summery
A22	6.02.2024	Account Closure Summery
A23	6.02.2024	Account Closure Summery

¶64

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

¶65

-Nil -

¶66

-Nil –

¶67

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Bhima Hanamanth Hulasadar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Bhima Hanamanth Hulasadar

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

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank versus Sri.Heeru Somalu Lamani

Canara Bank versus Sri.Vijayakumar

Canara Bank versus Sri.Veerendra. D.M

Ms Anjani Kumar Srivastava and Others versus Mansarovar Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Mr Amit Kumar Nag and Anr. versus Axis Bank Limited

Sri Tuhin Kumar Das and Another versus Bank of India