State Bank of India R/by its Chief Manager Sri. P.H. Krishna Kishor vs Ayeesha Banu Abdul Khayum A Advocate - CHANDRAPPA M R — 100/2022
Case under Order 7 Rule 1 Cpc Section 7. Disposed: Contested--DECREED on 28th March 2026.
Com.O.S. - Commercial Original Case
CNR: KADG010046142022
Filing Number
99/2022
Filing Date
05-12-2022
Registration No
100/2022
Registration Date
05-12-2022
Court
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, DAVANGERE
Judge
243-PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DAVANGERE
Decision Date
28th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DECREED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Bank of India R/by its Chief Manager Sri. P.H. Krishna Kishor
Adv. RAVIKUMAR V
Respondent(s)
Ayeesha Banu Abdul Khayum A Advocate - CHANDRAPPA M R
Hearing History
Judge: 243-PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DAVANGERE
Disposed
JUDGMENTS CIVIL
ARGUMENTS CIVIL
EVIDENCE CIVIL
EVIDENCE CIVIL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | JUDGMENTS CIVIL |
| 13-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS CIVIL |
| 02-03-2026 | EVIDENCE CIVIL |
| 12-02-2026 | EVIDENCE CIVIL |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: State Bank of India v. Ayeesha Banu Abdul Khayum Decision: The court decreed SBI's suit in full. The defendant must pay ₹4,04,232 plus compound interest at 12.70% per annum from suit filing until realization. Key Reasoning: The defendant admitted borrowing ₹4,90,000 in December 2017 but defaulted on repayment. The court rejected her defense that documents were signed on blank papers, finding no evidence supporting this claim and noting she failed to cross-examine witnesses or testify. The suit was not time-barred as it was filed within three years, with the defendant executing a revival letter in April 2020 acknowledging liability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: State Bank of India v. Ayeesha Banu Abdul Khayum Decision: The court decreed SBI's suit in full. The defendant must pay ₹4,04,232 plus compound interest at 12.70% per annum from suit filing until realization. Key Reasoning: The defendant admitted borrowing ₹4,90,000 in December 2017 but defaulted on repayment. The court rejected her defense that documents were signed on blank papers, finding no evidence supporting this claim and noting she failed to cross-examine witnesses or testify. The suit was not time-barred as it was filed within three years, with the defendant executing a revival letter in April 2020 acknowledging liability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts