Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ms R K Metals

DRT20 Aug 2026OA/931/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's Original Application under Section 19 of the RDB Act for issuance of a Recovery Certificate. Finding the defendant's case unrebutted due to ex-parte default and evidence uncontroverted, the Tribunal awarded the claim amount with a reduced interest rate of 12% p.a. to be recoverable from schedule property.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs.83,51,589/- from 11.03.2025 with 12% simple interest from filing date, recoverable from schedule property.

State Bank of India versus Ms R K Metals — Banking and Recovery | 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.931/2025

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

State Bank of India SMEC (40694) Branch, Bamboo Bazar, Mysuru.

¶7

…APPLICANT

¶8

AND:

¶9

M/s. R.K. Metals Rep by its Prop: Sri.Munna Boudh S/o.Chethu Boudh # P-14, Hebbal Industrial Area, Near J.K. Tyres, Mysore-570016.

¶10

And also at:

¶11

R/o.# 9, MIG 02, G R 3, KHB Colony Belavadi Post, Hootagalli, Mysore-570018

¶12

...DEFENDANT

¶13

Counsel on record/appeared for:

¶14

Applicant : Smt.Mahalaxmi Vivek Defendant : Exparte

¶15

2 OA No.931/2025

¶16

: FINAL ORDER:

¶17

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 defendant for Rs.83,51,589/(Rupees Eighty-Three Lakhs Fifty-One Thousand Five Hundred and EightyNine Only) with further interest thereon from the date of filing the Application till realization from the Defendant.

¶18

The Defendant availed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) for purpose of Business, Cash Credit Facility. At the request of the defendant the Applicant Bank renewed Cash Credit facility to the extent of 05 Lakh and availed Term Loan-I of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Only) For the purpose of Business. Later again at the request of the defendant the Applicant Bank enhanced Cash Credit loan to the extent of Rs.18 Lakhs and modified Term Loan-1 facility to a limit of Rs.4,32,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Thirty-Two Thousand Only) and sanctioned Term Loan -II of Rs.8,80,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Eight Thousand Only) for purpose of Business.

¶19

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

¶20

3 OA No.931/2025

¶21

It is further contended that, despite availing the credit facility, agreeing to service the loan amount promptly and regularly, the defendant failed in complying the same, resulting in default in repayment and consequentially turning the loan account 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, service of summons on the defendant, they failed to appear, resulting the defendant being set exparte on 18.03.2026.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

The following issues arise for consideration in this matter:

¶27

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

¶28

ii) What order are to be passed?

¶29

Both these issues are gone into and decided together.

¶30

4 OA No.931/2025

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

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 12.00% p.a.(simple).

¶34

In the result, OA.No.931/2025 stands allowed.

¶35

i) The applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs.83,51,589/- (Rupees Eighty-Three Lakhs Fifty-One Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty-Nine Only) from 11.03.2025 along with current and future interest 12% from the date of filing the application till the date of realization, from the Defendant, after giving credit to all the amounts recovered and received during the pendency of the OA if any, and allowed

¶36

5 OA No.931/2025

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

amount due and payable to the applicant bank, the defendant and his other assets are liable for all such amounts due in loan accounts.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

transferred to Recovery for execution.

¶44

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

¶45

this Final Order.

¶46

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned in terms of Section 19(21)(i) of the RDB Act, read with Rule 16 of DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993.

¶47

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

¶48

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶49

6 OA No.931/2025

¶50

ANNEXURES

¶51

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK:

¶52

AW-1: Sri.Natesh S B, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank.

¶53

Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

¶54

Sl. No.	Description of Documents	Date	Exhibit Number
1.	Application	20.09.2011	A1
2.	Arrangement Letter	29.09.2011	A2
3.	Hypothecation Agreement	07.10.2011	A3
4.	Arrangement Letter	05.06.2013	A4
5.	Supplemental Hypothecation Agreement	05.06.2013	A5
6.	Arrangement Letter	13.02.2015	A6
7.	Supplemental Agreement of Loan-Cum- Hypothecation	13.02.2015	A7
8.	Revival Letter	11.12.2017	A8
9.	Revival Letter	02.12.2020	A9
10.	Revival Letter	30.03.2022	A10
11.	Legal Notice	10.03.2025	A11
12.	Postal Receipt	10.03.2025	A12
13.	Certified Accounts Extract	07.03.2025	A13
14.	Certified Accounts Extract	07.03.2025	A14
15.	Certified Accounts Extract	07.03.2025	A15
16.	Account Closure Summary	10.03.2025	A16
17.	Account Closure Summary	10.03.2025	A17
18.	Account Closure Summary	10.03.2025	A18

¶55

Sd/(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Ms R K Metals

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ms R K Metals

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

All orders in this case

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