STATE BANK OF INDIA vs REMANI DEVI K on 7 July 2026

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated this the 7th day of July, 2026

TA No.67/2017 (OA No.445/2016) Between

State Bank of India,

Successor of State Bank of Travancore,

Thodupuzha Town branch,

Thodupuzha,

Idukki District – 685 584.

…Applicant [Applicant bank was substituted in place of State Bank of Travancore as per order dated 06.07.2017 in IA No.832/2017] And

K.Remani Devi,

W/o.N.Parameswaran Namboothiri,

Proprietrix, M/s.Parvathy Foods,

Nadayapillil Illom,

Puthupariyaram P.O., Thodupuzha,

Idukki District – 685 584.

…Defendant

This Original Application having been heard on 22.06.2026 in the presence of Advocate Sri.Vivek George J. for the applicant bank and stood over to this day for consideration, the Tribunal delivered the following: F I N A L O R D E R

This Original Application has been filed under S.19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,45,809.25 due under cash credit (hypothecation)

account together with future interest on the sum of Rs.30,00,424.25 @12.70% per annum with monthly rests from the defendant and by sale of ‘A’ schedule properties. Facts of the case:

2. The defendant approached Thodupuzha Town Branch of erstwhile State Bank of Travancore seeking financial assistance for her business as sole proprietrix of M/s.Parvathy Foods. Considering the request, a cash credit (hypothecation) limit of Rs.15 lakhs was sanctioned on 25.06.2009 to meet the working capital requirements of her proprietary concern. The cash credit limit was enhanced from time to time and finally enhanced to Rs.25 lakhs on 17.03.2011. The defendant availed the facility and executed hypothecation-cum-working capital agreements whereby she created hypothecation charge over ‘A’ schedule properties. The defendant operated the account and withdrew money from the bank but violated the terms and conditions governing the grant of loan. Hence the applicant issued a lawyer notice to the defendant on 07.06.2016 demanding repayment of the outstanding dues but she did not liquidate the liability. In such premises, the applicant was constrained to file the OA claiming the following reliefs:

(i) To recover the sum of Rs.30,45,809.25 together with pendente lite and post decree interest on the sum of Rs.30,00,424.25 from the defendant and by sale of ‘A’ schedule properties;

(ii) To recover the costs, charges and expenses from the defendant;

(iii) To issue Recovery Certificate to the Recovery Officer with a direction to recover the amount and pay it to the applicant bank.

3. The defendant filed written statement contending inter alia that she availed a cash credit (hypothecation) limit of Rs.15 lakhs for working capital requirement of the firm M/s.Parvathy Foods and the said facility was enhanced to Rs.20 lakhs in 2010 and further enhanced to Rs.25 lakhs in the year 2011 but it is incorrect to say that she undertook to pay interest @14.50% per annum. This defendant never agreed that principal amount shall include interest calculated and debited to the account. The claim of the applicant that the defendant executed letter dated 15.02.2014 confirming the liability is absolutely false. This defendant never received any lawyer notice as alleged in the OA and she is not liable to pay the amount as claimed in the application. Hence the OA may be dismissed with costs to the defendant. Proof Affidavit:

4. To establish the claim on behalf of the applicant, one Mr.Paulose M.I., Chief Manager of the bank has filed proof affidavit and additional proof affidavit and one Mrs.Subeda Sivan, retired Manager had also filed proof affidavit and produced the loan documents marked as Exhibits A1 to A13. The availing of the subject loan and creation of hypothecation charge over the schedule property are well established from the documents placed by the applicant bank.

5. Despite sufficient opportunity granted, the defendant has not filed any counter proof affidavit nor adduced any documentary evidence to substantiate her claim.

6. Heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. None appeared and represented for the defendant to put forth her case and she remained absent from the proceeding from 06.07.2017.

7. The sole issue arises for consideration is whether the applicant is entitled to recover the amount as claimed in this case.

8. Admittedly, the defendant availed the enhanced cash credit (hypothecation) limit of Rs.25 lakhs from the applicant bank on 17.03.2011 and to secure the loan, book debts and receivables, stock of goods etc. described in ‘A’ schedule were hypothecated to the bank. The contention of the defendant is that she did not execute the revival letter dated 15.02.2014 marked as Ext.A7 and has also not received Ext.A8 lawyer notice issued by the applicant. On perusal of the records, it appears that the defendant had executed Ext.A7 revival letter dated 15.02.2014 acknowledging the liability under the subject loan account. It is averred by the retired Manager Mrs.Subeda Sivan in the proof affidavit that the revival letter was signed by the defendant in her presence on 15.02.2014 and she witnessed the same. Further, it could be seen that after receipt of Ext.A8 lawyer notice dated 07.06.2016 issued by the applicant, the defendant through her lawyer issued a reply dated 18.06.2016 marked as Ext.A13 citing the reason for non-payment of the loan and sought time to repay the entire loan amount. According to the applicant bank, no amount was repaid by the defendant so far. An amount of Rs.30,45,809.25 is outstanding in the loan account as on 18.06.2016, which is clearly established from the account statements marked as Exts.A9 and A10. In the above circumstance, the applicant is entitled to recover the said amount from the defendant. The issue is answered in favour of the applicant bank.

9. Considering the amount advanced, interest and penal interest applied and default committed, I am of the view that the applicant bank is entitled to get pendente lite and post-decree interest @10% per annum on the sum of Rs.30,00,424.25 (i.e., after excluding the penal interest of Rs.45,385/- from the OA claim amount of Rs.30,45,809.25), which is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. The applicant bank, therefore, is entitled to get a final order on the following lines: In the result, the applicant bank is given a final order allowing it to recover:

(i) the sum of Rs.30,45,809.25 (Rupees thirty lakhs forty five thousand eight hundred and nine and Paise twenty five only) due under the cash credit (hypothecation) account from the defendant and by sale of ‘A’ schedule properties, if available;

(ii) pendente lite and post-decree interest @10% per annum on the sum of Rs.30,00,424.25 (Rupees thirty lakhs four hundred and twenty four and Paise twenty five only) from 20.06.2016 till realization from the defendant and by sale of ‘A’ schedule properties, if available; and

(iii) costs and expenses borne by it for realization of the loan from the defendant.

11. The applicant bank shall file memo of costs within ten days from the date of this final order.

12. Recovery Certificate shall be drawn up and issued to the Recovery Officer in terms of the final order.

13. Communicate copy of this order to both parties as provided in R.16 r/w R.2(c) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. (Dictated to my PA, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 7th day of July, 2026)

[SOVAN KUMAR DASH] PRESIDING OFFICER

A P P E N D I X Witness for Applicant: AW1: Sri.Paulose M.I., Chief Manager of the applicant bank. AW2: Smt.Subeda Sivan, retired Manager of the applicant bank. Witness for Defendant(s): Nil

Applicant’s Exhibits

Ext.No Date Particulars of documents

A1 25.06.2009 Sanction letter issued by the bank sanctioning cash credit (hypothecation) limit of Rs.15 lakhs to the defendant. A2 26.06.2009 Hypothecation-cum-working capital agreement executed by the defendant. A3 25.03.2010 Sanction letter issued by the bank sanctioning the enhanced cash credit (hypothecation) limit of Rs.20 lakhs to the defendant. A4 25.03.2010 Supplemental hypothecation-cum-working capital agreement executed by the defendant. A5 17.03.2011 Sanction letter issued by the bank sanctioning the enhanced cash credit (hypothecation) limit of Rs.25 lakhs to the defendant. A6 17.03.2011 Supplemental hypothecation-cum-working capital agreement executed by the defendant. A7 15.02.2014 Revival letter executed by the defendant. A8 07.06.2016 Copy of lawyer notice issued to the defendant. A9 … Certified copy of the statement of account relating to the cash credit facility. A10 … Statement showing the accrued interest under Ext.A9 account. A11 … Statement showing the rate of interest applied in Ext.A9 account from time to time. A12 … Certificate showing the penal interest charged in Ext.A9 account and capitalized portion thereof.

A13 18.06.2016 Reply to Ext.A8 lawyer notice issued by the defendant.

Defendant’s Exhibits – Nil

PRESIDING OFFICER

PRESIDING OFFICER

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-2, KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: SRI.SOVAN KUMAR DASH PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 7th July, 2026

TA No.67/2017 (OA No.445/2016)

Between

State Bank of India, Successor of State Bank of Travancore, Thodupuzha Town branch, Thodupuzha, Idukki District.

…Applicant And

K.Remani Devi, W/o.N.Parameswaran Namboothiri, Proprietrix, M/s.Parvathy Foods, Nadayapillil Illom, Puthupariyaram P.O., Thodupuzha, Idukki District. …Defendant

F I N A L O R D E R