Allowed

State Bank of India v. Pradeep Kasilinka

DRT29 May 2026OA/686/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's OA for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against housing loan defaulting borrowers, reducing the claimed interest from the exact rate to 8% simple p.a., and directed proceedings against schedule properties.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of OA No.686/2022 for Recovery Certificate issuance against defendants jointly, severally and personally; reduced interest of 8% simple p.a.; recovery from schedule property and assets.

State Bank of India versus Pradeep Kasilinka — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

Dated this 29^th Day of May, 2026

¶3

Present: Sri. T. RAJESH Presiding Officer

¶4

OA.No.686/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

State Bank of India Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, No.11/90, 3^rd Floor, Near Old Shivaji Theater, J.C. Road, Bangalore-560 002. Represented by its Authorized Officer Ms. Jayanthi. A

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Pradeep kasilinka, Aged about 37 years, S/o Ramakrishna Kasilinka, Residing at No. 101, Ground Floor, Aditya Enclave, 5^th Line, Balaji Nagar, Guntur, Andrapradesh-522034.

¶10

Also at: Sri. Pradeep Kasilinka, Deputy manager, Employee No. 36383, West Side, (A Unit of Trent Limited/ A Tata Enterprises) H.No. 5-87-34/8 and 9, Laxmipuram Road, Next to Bata Showroom, Guntur, Andrapradesh-522007.

¶11

Also at Sri. Pradeep Kasilinka, No. 10-75, Duga Nagar, Opp: MRO Office, AkividuMandalam, Mandirada, West Godavari, Andra Pradesh-522034.

¶12

Smt. Pavana Deepthi Kavuri, Aged about,32 years,

¶13

OA 686/2022

¶14

¶15

W/o Sri Pradeep Kasilinka, Residing at No. 101, Ground Floor, Aditya Enclave, 5^th Line, Balaji Nagar, Guntur, Andra Pradesh-522034.

¶16

Also at Smt. Pavana Deepthi Kavuri, No. 10-75, Duga Nagar, Opp: MRO Office, Akividu Mandalam, Madirada, West Godavari, Andra Pradesh-522 034.

¶17

Aslo at

¶18

Smt. Pavana Deepthi Kavuri, Employee No. 47, QTPI Private Limited, No. 21, Sy. No. 165, Concorde Silicon Valley, Doodathogur Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru-560100.

¶19

...DEFENDANTS

¶20

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶21

Applicant : FX & Co., Defendants : Exparte

¶22

FINAL ORDER

¶23

The present Original Application in short (OA) has been filed under

¶24

section 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate against the defendants for Rs. 81,43,425.00/(Rupees Eighty One Lakh Forty Three Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Five Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶25

It is the case of the applicant that the defendants availed the Housing

¶26

Loan credit facility of Rs. 69,60,000/- from the applicant bank.

¶27

OA 686/2022

¶28

¶29

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with Loan application, Arrangement letter, Memorandum of Loan Agreement for Home Loan, Memorandum of Deposit of Title deed.

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

Despite, summons the defendants, they failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 27.11.2025.

¶33

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-8 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶34

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.

¶35

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶36

i) Whether the applicant had succeeded in proving the OA claim

¶37

OA 686/2022

¶38

¶39

as against the defendants?

¶40

ii) What order 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 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 the security interest and the defaults committed in the accounts. 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 findings arrived herein above, the Tribunal

¶44

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

¶45

Taking into consideration the facts that the credit facilities are

¶46

availed for housing 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

¶47

be allowed with a reduced interest of 8.00% (simple).

¶48

In the result, OA.No.686/2022, stands allowed,

¶49

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs.

¶50

OA 686/2022

¶51

¶52

81,43,425.00/- (Rupees Eighty One Lakh Forty Three Thousand Four

¶53

hundred Twenty Five Only) with further interest @8.00 % p.a.(simple) from the date of filing OA till the realization, from the defendants jointly, severally & 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.

¶54

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

¶55

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendants jointly, severally & personally and their assets are liable for the amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶60

v) Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

¶61

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

¶62

OA 686/2022

¶63

¶64

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

¶65

Rules, 1993.

¶66

[Dictated to the Stenographer (DV), transcribed by her, corrected and signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 29^th Day of May, 2026].

Sd/-

(T. RAJESH)

ANNEXURES

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶72

AW-1: G. Ajay Kumar, Deputy Manager of the Applicant Bank

¶73

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶74

Annexure	Date	List of Documents
A1	10.07.2019	Loan Application
A2	17.02.2019	Arrangement letter
A3	19.12.2019	The Memorandum of Loan Agreement Granted to Public
A4	20.12.2019	The Registered Memorandum relating to deposit of Title deeds
A5	07.12.2020	The 13(2) Notice
A6	31.12.2020	The New Indian Express and kannada Prabha Paper publications
A7	21.08.2021	The Symbolic Possession Notice and Paper publication
A8	--	The Statement of Account under the Loan Account No. 39010911901

¶75

OA 686/2022

¶76

¶77

Witness Examined for the Defendants: -Nil - List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants: -Nil –

¶78

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Pradeep Kasilinka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Pradeep Kasilinka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Aby Abraham

RRaju Kalidoss versus Canara Bank

Sajan S versus Yes Bank

Vinod Kumar Gupta versus Punjab and Sind Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Marvel Metals Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Mr B S Girisha versus Dcb Bank Limited