STATE BANK OF INDIA vs JEEVITHA KARTHIKEYAN & ANR (BLR) on 10 April 2026

FINAL ORDER

1. The Application was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Bengaluru on 13.08.2015 Under Section 19 (1) of the Recovery of Debt And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and numbered as OA No. 1679/2015, seeking for issuance of a Recovery Certificate for Rs. 11,63,581/- (Rupees eleven lakh sixty-three thousand five hundred and eighty-one only). Subsequently, owing to bifurcation of jurisdiction vide Government of India Gazette Notification dated 30.01.2017, the Application (OA No. 1679/2015) was transferred from Debts Recovery Tribunal -I, Bangalore to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No. 2213/2017.

2. It is the case of the applicant that Defendant No. 1 has availed a personal loan to the extent of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Thousand only), and thereafter availed another personal loan to the extent of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only), and also availed an overdraft financial facility to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). Defendant No. 2, being the employer of Defendant No. 1, has undertaken to deduct the monthly instalments from the salary payable to Defendant No. 1 and remit the same to the loan account of Defendant No. 1, and has executed a letter of undertaking in favour of the applicant. Defendant No. 2 has further agreed that, in the event of death, retirement, resignation, or discontinuation of service for any reason, it shall discharge the said liability of Defendant No. 1 out of the terminal benefits payable to Defendant No. 1.

3. It is also the case of the Applicant that, in respect of the aforesaid loans, the Defendants have executed the requisite loan documents in favour of the Applicant Bank to secure the credit facilities, including, inter alia, the agreement letter, express credit loan agreement, and letter of undertaking.

4. It is the case of the Applicant that the Defendants, despite availing the credit facility, after agreeing with the Terms and Conditions for the loan, failed in complying with the same, resulting in defaults and consequentially turning the loan accounts as Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

5. In the above circumstances, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing this TA seeking issuance of Recovery Certificate for the amount due in the account.

6. Summons were duly issued to the Defendants. Defendant No. 2 entered appearance through counsel and filed its written statement along with an authorization letter, offer of employment issued to Defendant No. 1, and attendance sheet, and has also filed its proof affidavit in support of its evidence. Defendant No. 1 failed to appear and remained absent.

7. In the written statement filed by Defendant No. 2, it is contended that it is a reputed company having employee-friendly policies. Defendant No. 1 requested Defendant No. 2 to act as a guarantor, and Defendant No. 2 agreed to the same. The mode of repayment of the loan amount was through monthly deductions from the salary account of Defendant No. 1. It is further contended that Defendant No. 2 agreed to act as guarantor on the condition that, in the event of death, retirement, resignation, or discontinuation of service for any reason, the said liability would be cleared out of the terminal benefits payable to Defendant No. 1. It is also stated that the attendance of Defendant No. 1 was last recorded on 07.12.2012, after which she absconded. It is further contended that Defendant No. 1 violated the terms of the offer letter, which required her to provide two month’s prior notice before leaving the employment; however, Defendant No. 1 left the company without any prior intimation to the officials of Defendant No. 2 and discontinued her employment without serving the requisite notice period.

8. The Applicant examined AW-1, who filed a proof affidavit reiterating the averments made in the TA and produced Exhibits A-1 to A-11, which were marked in evidence. DW-1 also filed a proof affidavit reiterating the averments made in the written statement.

9. The Applicant’s evidence remain un-rebutted and hence proved. According to the terms of the agreement executed by Defendant No. 2, its liability as guarantor is limited to the terminal benefits payable by Defendant No. 2 to Defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 absconded from employment without serving the required notice period, thereby violating the terms of her employment. Consequently, Defendant No. 2’s liability, is confined strictly to the terminal benefits if any payable to Defendant No. 1.

10. The documents produced by the Applicant are found to be admissible and are sufficient to prove the TA claim. Hence the Applicant is to be found entitled for the TA claim as the only issue as to the proof of TA claim is answered in favour of the applicant. The TA claim is made within limitation and there is no capitalization of penal interest.

11. Since the TA claim has been arrived at by calculating interest at the agreed rate, pendente lite and future interest are awarded at 12.00% per annum (simple). The prayer for interest with monthly rests and for penal interest for the future period is hereby declined.

12. In view of the above i. TA 2213 OF 2017 stands allowed ii. The Applicant is allowed to recover an aggregate sum of Rs. 11,63,581/- (Rupees eleven lakh sixty-three thousand five hundred and eighty-one only) with pendente lite and future interest of 12.00% p.a. (simple) from the date of filing of the OA till realization from the Defendant No.1 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 Defendant No.1 personally and her assets including the terminal benefits if any, payable by Defendant No. 2 to Defendant No. 1. iii. Interim application pending, if any, stands disposed of in terms of this final order.

iv. A Recovery Certificate is to be drawn and issued to the recovery Officer to enable recovery of the as per the above terms.

v. Applicant is allowed to realize cost of the proceeding for which cost memo is to be filed in 7 days’ time from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

13. 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. (Dictated to PY directly on the Computer, after its transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of April, 2026)

Sd/- (T. RAJESH)

PRESIDING OFFICER

ANNEXURES WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE APPLICANT BANK: AW-1: Sri. Vineet Nangia, Chief Manager, of Applicant Bank. Exhibits on the part of the Applicant:

Exhibit Nos. Date Particulars of Documents A1 23.07.2012 Loan application A2 17.08.2012 Arrangement letter A3 17.08.2012 Express Credit Loan Agreement A4 14.08.2012 Letter of undertaking A5 03.09.2012 Loan application A6 08.09.2012 DP Note Delivery Letter with On Demand A7 03.09.2012 Letter of undertaking A8 27.07.2015 Copy of Legal notice A9 -- Certified extract of loan ledger in respect of personal loan A/c. No. 3248815169 A10

Certified extract of loan ledger in respect of personal loan A/c. No. 32531473556 A11

Certified extract of loan ledger in respect of Overdraft loan A/c No. 20101540432

Witness Examined for the Defendants:

DW-1: Karthik Chintapatla, Authorized Signatory of Defendant No.2

List of Documents Exhibited for the Defendants:

-Nil-

Sd/-

(T. RAJESH)

PRESIDING OFFICER