Bangalore District Court
The State Bank Of India Racpc vs Harshitha B K on 20 January, 2026
KABC010197462024
IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-19).
DATED: THIS THE 20th DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT:
SRI. SATHISHA L.P., B.A., LL.B.
XCI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge &
Spl. Judge for KPIDFE Cases., Bengaluru.
C/C VII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S. No.5432/2024
PLAINTIFF : The State Bank of India
RACPC, Shankarpuram.
3rd floor, Bull Temple Road,
Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560004
Represented by its Chief Manager
Sudhakar
(By Sri.T.H.N Advocate)
V/S
DEFENDANTS : 1. Ms. Harshitha B.K
D/o Mr. Krishna Murthy
aged about 24 years
2. Mr. Krishna Murthy
S/o Doddaiah
Aged about 60 years
Both are R/at No.594
7th Cross, 8th Main,
Banashankari 6th Stage,
4th T Block,
Bangalore-560085.
2 O.S. No.5432/2024
Exparte
Date of institution of Suit 29-07-2024
Nature of the Suit Money Suit.
Date of commencement 19-12-2025
of recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment 20-01-2026
was pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
01 05 22
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of a sum of ₹3,07,988 with interest at the rate of 16% compounded quarterly from the date of suit till the date of realization and costs, and such other reliefs.
2. In this, it is contended that the defendants approached the plaintiff bank for the purpose of an education loan for studying the course of BBA in Dayanand Sagar Business Academy. The second defendant, being the guardian, also approached along with the first defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff bank sanctioned a sum of ₹3,40,000 under the education loan scheme on the terms and conditions agreed upon. The defendants have availed the same and at the time of filing the loan, the defendants have executed necessary loan documents in favour of the plaintiff bank. As 3 O.S. No.5432/2024 per the terms and conditions, it was agreed by the defendants that the loan will be repaid with interest at the rate of 9.5% per annum, subject to the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. The defendants have agreed to repay the loan in 84 equated monthly installments of ₹8,114 per month after commencement of repayment and there is an outstanding balance of ₹2,97,988 as on 18.05.2024.
3. It is further contended that the defendants never paid the EMI as agreed at the time of sanction. Instead, intermittently, they were paying lump sum after repeated reminders and kept the account irregular. As per the statement, the last payment of ₹8,108 was on 29.12.2023. After that, they stopped paying the EMI. Hence, the account became NPA as on 01.12.2023. Thereafter, the plaintiff bank issued a legal notice on 30.05.2024. Despite notice, the defendants have failed to comply with the demand, hence prayed to decree the suit.
4. After filing of the suit, summons was issued to the defendants. They remained absent, hence placed ex-parte. The plaintiff bank manager by name Rakesh Kumar is examined as PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to P9.
4 O.S. No.5432/2024
5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. Now the following points would arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit claim of ₹3,07,988/-
with interest at the rate of 16% compounded quarterly from the date of suit till the date of recovery?
2. What order ?
7. Having heard the arguments and documents, the answer to the above point is as under;
8. My findings on the above points is as follows;
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1:- The plaintiff bank is before this Court for recovery of the suit claim of ₹3,07,988/- with interest at the rate of 16% compounded quarterly with costs and relief.
10. In the suit, it is contended that the defendants have approached the plaintiff bank for education loan of defendant No. 1 and after sanction of the education loan, the defendants have executed necessary loan documents and accordingly a 5 O.S. No.5432/2024 loan of ₹3,40,000 was granted, which was to be repaid in 84 equated monthly installments of ₹8,114. But the defendants have failed to pay the loan as agreed, hence the loan account became a non-performing asset. Thereafter, the plaintiff bank, by issuing legal notice, has demanded repayment of the outstanding loan, but despite notice, the defendants have failed to repay the loan. Hence, the plaintiff bank is before the Court.
11. The plaintiff bank manager by name Mr. Rakesh Kumar, who is examined as PW1, has filed his chief- examination affidavit reiterating the plaint allegations and also got marked Ex.P1 to P9. Ex.P1 is the loan application form which discloses that the defendants have availed the loan for the purpose of studying BBA at Dayanand Sagar Institution. The said document contains the signatures of defendant Nos.1 and 2. The bank has produced Ex.P2, which is the terms and conditions of the loan, which also bears the signatures of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Ex.P3 is the agreement of loan which also bears the signatures of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Ex.P4 is the change letter which is signed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 agreeing to inform the change of email address, 6 O.S. No.5432/2024 institution, university, course and other details. The plaintiff bank has further produced Ex.P5, which is the certificate under Section 63(4) of BSA with regard to the documents. Further, the plaintiff bank has produced Ex.P6 and Ex.P7, which are the legal notices issued to defendant Nos.1 and 2. Ex.P9 is the account statement which discloses the balance of the loan amount. From the appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, it is clear that defendant No.1 is the student and defendant No.2 is her father, who have availed the education loan by executing necessary loan documents from the plaintiff bank and they have failed to repay the same as per the terms and conditions of the loan. Such being the case, the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the claim along with agreed interest. Hence, the point for consideration is answered in the affirmative.
12. POINT NO.2: In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff bank is decreed with costs.
The plaintiff bank is entitled to recover ₹3,07,988 with interest at the rate of 16% 7 O.S. No.5432/2024 compounded quarterly from the date of suit till the date of realization.
The defendants are directed to pay this amount within 90 days from today, failing which the plaintiff bank is at liberty to file execution to recover the same.
Office to draw decree accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer III on computer and print out taken by her, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court today the 20th day of January, 2026) Digitally signed by L P SATHISH LP Date:
SATHISH 2026.01.20 15:14:48 +0530 [SATHISHA.L.P.] XCI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE FOR KPIDFE CASES ., C/C VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff:
PW.1 : Rakesh Kumar S Witness examined on behalf of Defendants:
: - Nil -
Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 Loan Application
Ex.P.2 Arrangement letter
Ex.P.3 Loan Agreement
Ex.P.4 Change letter
Ex.P.5 Certificate under Sec 63(4) of BSA
Ex.P.6 Office copy of the legal notice
Ex.P.7 Receipt
Ex.P.8 Returned RPAD cover
8 O.S. No.5432/2024
Ex.P.8( Content of Ex.P.8
a)
Ex.P.9 Statement of account
(Sathisha.L.P.).
C/C. VII A.C.C. & S.J.,
BENGALURU.
9 O.S. No.5432/2024
(Judgment pronounced in
Open Court (Vide separate
Judgment).
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff bank is
decreed with costs.
The plaintiff bank is entitled to
recover ₹3,07,988 with interest at the rate of 16% compounded quarterly from the date of suit till the date of realization.
The defendants are directed to pay this amount within 90 days from today, failing which the plaintiff bank is at liberty to file execution to recover the same.
Office to draw decree
accordingly.
(Sathisha.L.P.).
C/C. VII A.C.C. & S.J.,
BENGALURU.
10 O.S. No.5432/2024