Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri. Amarnatah. S

DRT24 Jul 2026OA/817/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the State Bank of India for issuance of a Recovery Certificate against three defendants who failed to appear. The court held the evidence unrebutted and granted recovery of the dues with reduced interest.

What did the court decide?

Issued Recovery Certificate for Rs. 48,01,253/- plus interest at 10% simple p.a. from date of filing, recoverable jointly, severally, and personally from defendants and against schedule properties.

State Bank of India versus Sri. Amarnatah. S — Cheque Dishonour | 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.817/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

State Bank of India Channapatna Branch, Represented by its Chief Manager, ARMB Kempegowda Road, Bangalore-560009.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri. Amarnath S, S/o V Shivreddy

¶10

Sri. VShivareddy S/o Lakshman Reddy

¶11

Both R/at Yettagadahalli Village, Gantamvaipallipanchyath Bagepalli Taluk-561207.

¶12

Office at

¶13

SLV Gas Agency, Opp to Court, Bagapali Town-561207

¶14

Sri. Nanji Reddy, S/o Bayappa R/at 8^th Ward, Bagepalli Town Chikkaballapur Dist- 561207 ...DEFENDANTS

¶15

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶16

Applicant : K.S.Venkataramana Defendants : Exparte

¶17

2 817/2022

¶18

FINAL ORDER

¶19

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. 48,01,253/- (Rupees Forty Eight Lakh One Thousand Two hundred Fifty Three Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization.

¶20

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

¶21

I. Vehicle Loan for sum of Rs. 16,50,000/- (Rupees Sixteen lakh Fifty Thousand Only) on 03.02.2016.

¶22

II. Cash Credit Loan for the sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Only) on 28.12.2016.

¶23

It is also the case of the applicant that, in view of the above availed loans, the defendants executed necessary loan documents along with Vehicle Loan Agreement, Agreement of loan cum hypothecation, guarantee agreement, mortgage deed.

¶24

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.

¶25

In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this OA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount

¶26

3 817/2022

¶27

due in the account.

¶28

Despite, taking out summons the defendants failed to appear, resulting the defendants being set exparte on 25.11.2025.

¶29

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-12 and got the same marked in evidence.

¶30

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.

¶31

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶32

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

¶33

as against the defendants?

¶34

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶35

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶36

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 Mortgage and hypothecation as claimed by the applicant bank and the defaults

¶37

4 817/2022

¶38

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.

¶39

Hence in view of the findings arrived herein above, the 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 facility was availed for business 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 10.00% (simple).

¶41

In the result, OA.No.817/2022, stands allowed,

¶42

i) The applicant is allowed to recovery an aggregate sum of Rs. 48,01,253/- (Rupees Forty Eight Lakh One Thousand Two hundred Fifty Three Only) with further interest @10.00 % p.a.(simple) 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 proceeding against schedule property. Schedule Properties to the OA be the schedule to the recovery certificate.

¶43

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

¶44

5 817/2022

¶45

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

¶46

severally and personally and their assets are liable for the amounts due under the loan accounts.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶51

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

¶52

of this final order.

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

Rules, 1993.

¶56

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

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶59

6 817/2022

¶60

ANNEXURES

¶61

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶62

AW-1: H.P. Paramesh, Manager of the applicant Bank

¶63

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶64

Annexure	Date	List of Documents
A1	03.02.2016	Copy of the Loan Application
A2	04.02.2016	Copy of the Sanction Letter
A3	04.02.2016	Copy of the Vehicle loan Agreement
A4	17.03.2016	Copy of the Letter of Arrangement
A5	28.12.2016	Copy of the Agreement of Loan cum hypothecation
A6	28.12.2016	Copy of the guarantee agreement
A7	28.01.2015	Copy of the Reg. mortgage deed
A8	28.03.2022	O/c of the legal Notice
A9	--	Postal receipts
A10	--	Postal Ack/ Cover
A11	--	Statement of Account in regard to Account No. 64190606083
A12	--	Statement of Account in regard to Account No. 64165941580

¶65

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

¶66

-Nil -

¶67

-Nil –

¶68

Sd/- (T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶69

7 817/2022

State Bank of India v. Sri. Amarnatah. S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri. Amarnatah. S

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