Disposed¶53

Neelamma H v. State Bank of India

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2026RFA/854/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, RFA No. 854 of 2023 (MON), decided 15-07-2026 by Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J.; appeal against money-recovery decree in O.S.No.19/2020 (SBI PMEGP loan suit); disposed of on basis of joint memos recording out-of-court settlement under Rinn Samadhan 2526 scheme; Rs. 3,75,000/- paid in full and final settlement on 27-03-2026; loan account closed as satisfied; refund of court fee on appeal memorandum ordered; Section 96 CPC; no cases cited.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of in terms of the memos filed by both parties recording the amicable settlement (payment of Rs. 3,75,000/- in full and final settlement and closure of the loan account); Registry directed to refund the court fee paid on the appeal memorandum to the appellant upon proper identification as per rules. ¶53

Neelamma H Vs State Bank of India — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:36151 RFA No. 854 of 2023

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

CNR: KAHC010206612023

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 854 OF 2023 (MON)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

NEELAMMA H. W/O CHANDRAPPA H., AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST AND PROP: KUMADWATHI INDUSTRY, AMBARAGOPPA ROAD, KUTRAHALLI, R/O ‘SRI GURUKRUPE’, 3^RD CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGARA, SHIKARIPURA TOWN, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶10

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY HER SON AND GPA HOLDER ASHOKA H. C., S/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O 3^RD CROSS, VINAYAKANAGARA, SHIKARIPURA TOWN, SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 427.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. R. GOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE BANK OF INDIA

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:36151 RFA No. 854 of 2023

¶17

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CNR: KAHC010206612023

¶20

HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NO.65, SANTHAMARKARA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. ONE OF ITS BRANCH AT M. S. ROAD, SHIKARIPUR, SBI, SHIKARIPUR-BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, SRI SURESH DODMANI, S/O BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, SHIKARIPURA-TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 427.

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. AKSHARA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.11.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.19/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SHIKARIPURA AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶26

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:36151 RFA No. 854 of 2023

¶29

CNR: KAHC010206612023

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶32

respondent has filed a memo stating that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.

¶33

The memo filed by the learned counsel

¶34

appearing on behalf of the respondent reads as follows:

¶35

“The Respondent, through counsel, most respectfully submits that the Appellant had filed a Memo on 18.06.2026 stating that the above matter had been amicably settled and that a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- had been paid towards full and final settlement. The Respondent hereby confirms the receipt of the said amount and, in support thereof, is producing the relevant document evidencing the final settlement/payment along with this Memo. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to take the same on record and pass such necessary orders as deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶36

3. Earlier, on 16.06.2026, the learned counsel

¶37

appearing on behalf of the appellant has filed a memo,

¶38

which reads as follows:

¶39

1. “The above appeal is filed challenging the impugned judgment and decree in O.S No. 19/2020, decreeing the suit of the respondent – Bank for recovery of loan amount given to

¶40

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:36151 RFA No. 854 of 2023

¶43

CNR: KAHC010206612023

¶44

appellant under Prime Minister’s Employment General Program (PMEGP).

¶45

2. The appellant submits that under Rinn Samadhan 2526 settlement scheme, the Bank has settled the amount payable at Rs. 3,75,000/- and accordingly the respondent – Bank has received the amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- from appellant on 27-03-2026 in full and final settlement under the above scheme and closed the loan account as satisfied. In this regard a communication issued by respondent – Bank dt: 05-06-2026 to that effect that loan account is closed under the said scheme and also statement and the challen/ acknowledgement issued by respondent-Bank in proof of payment of the said amount by appellant are enclosed herewith. Thus the matter is settled between the parties amicable out of court and no amount is due for recovery under impugned judgment.

¶46

3. Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to record the above settlement of clearance of loan in dispute in the appeal and dispose of the appeal in terms of the settlement and pass appropriate orders, with a direction to the Registry to refund the court fee paid on the appeal memorandum to the appellant, in the ends of justice and equity.”

¶47

The memos placed by learned counsel

¶48

appearing on behalf of both the parties are placed on record.

¶49

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:36151 RFA No. 854 of 2023

¶52

CNR: KAHC010206612023

¶53

Therefore, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, as it does not survive for consideration on merits. Hence, the appeal is disposed of in terms of the memos placed by both the parties.

¶54

The Registry is directed to refund the Court fee

¶55

paid by the appellant to the appellant, upon proper identification as per rules.

¶56

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶57

SRA

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76

Neelamma H v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelamma H v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Hanumantharayappa Vs Sri. M Sachidananda Swamy

Sri. Ganesha Vs Sri. Thimmappa

B.S. Indumathi Vs Sri B S Kumar

Sri D K Naganna Vs the Commissioner

Sri Mohammed Salahuddin Vs Smt Shamshad Begum

Sri Chandrashekar Vs Smt Sarojamma