Allowed

State Bank of India v. Kondaveeti Seetha

DRT25 Jul 2023OA/131/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Originatory Application filed by State Bank of India against three borrowers for recovery of a home loan principal and interest, noting the account was classified as NPA and defendants were absent.

What did the court decide?

Defendants 1-3 to pay Rs.26,60,994/- with future interest @11.75% p.a.; Bank entitled to sue the mortgaged property, person, and properties of the debt due.

State Bank of India versus Kondaveeti Seetha — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶4

OA.No.131 of 2O23

¶5

Between :

¶6

State Bank of Indta, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Bus terminal complex Commuter Amenity Centre, Koti, Hydera bad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Smt Kondaveeti Seetha, w/o K. Narayana, female, major, r/o H.No.4-4, Cheriyal, RangJ reddy district - SO1 301.

¶10

¶11

Office at Survey no.34, Opposite Geethanjali Engineering College, Cheriyal, Keesara, Ranga redJy_ 501 301.

¶12

Sri Kondaveeti Chandra Mouli, S/o Sri K. Narayana, male, major, R/o H.No.4-4, Cheriyal, Ranga Reddy district - 501 301,

¶13

Sri Kondaveeti Rajashekar, S/o Sri K. Narayana, H.No.4-4, Cheriyal, Ranga Reddy dist - 501 301.

¶14

d<br>IF,
11 * 15
t?,a
oJ/
,{i,$,,*ffi

¶15

(oA.No.131/2023)

¶16

¶17

OFfice at Survey no.34, Opp Geethanjali Engineering college Cheriyal, Keesara, Ranga Reddy - 501 301.

¶18

Defendants

¶19

Counsel for the Pa rties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

Sri C. Sreedhar

Expa rte

ORDER

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery oF a total sum of Rs.26,6o,9g4l_ (Rupees Twenty six Lakhs Sixty thousand Nine hundred and Eighty four only) i.e., a sum of Rs.24,16,156/- under loan account No.62455915690 ; a sum of Rs.2,44,828/- under loan account No.62455917143 respectively with further interest @ lI.7 5o/o p.a from date of apprication tiil the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶26

As per the averments in the applicatjOnJhfu\pplicant Bank states that the defendants avaited r"g(RBRtBr,000/- for purchase of oA schedute property i/i8urrunn#nt * rei$'qpted 1s.06.2019.

¶27

(OA.No,131/2023)

¶28

To secure due repayment of home loan, the defendants executed memorandum of loan agreement for home loan dated 15.02.2016, To secure due repayment, the defendants created mortgage of schedule property by way of memorandum oF deposit of sale deed no'1525/2016 dated 20'02.2016. After avairing the roan facirities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 12.09,202t and issued legal notice dated L3.03.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶29

Defendants were called absent and set exparte on 05.07.2023.

¶30

Sri A.G. Satya^prasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked

¶31

as Ex.A.1to A. 11.

¶32

Heard the L,d. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶33

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶34

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶35

The defendants To su bsta ntiate the case of the^{-"."ffiffixparte} npplrcanb a"ni," nw. r official of the ^'t'o"z 5"t[i ?ffi''^{["[i' tt'"} k#'

¶36

(oA.No.131/2023)

¶37

Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.11. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶38

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶39

The Defendants No.1 to 3 are jointry and severaily riable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.26,60,994/- (Rupees Twenty six Lakhs Sixty thousand Nine hundred and Eighty four only) i.e., a sum of Rs.24,16,156/- under loan account No.62455915690 ; a sum of Rs.2,44,828/- under loan account No.62455917143 respectively with further interest @ Il.75o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization.

¶40

i) fhe Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in the schedule to oA towards realization of its dues.

¶41

ii) The applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of d of the debt due.

¶42

iii) The Applicant Bank the oA.

¶43

(oA. No.131/2023)

¶44

iv) The Appricant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶45

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶46

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned,

¶47

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of July, 2023)

¶48

sd/_

¶49

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶50

.-ffi<br>, t:1 25JU, 2m
-'
b,*,.-t#
kffIt'

¶51

RUE COPY
.,lssl.

State Bank of India v. Kondaveeti Seetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Kondaveeti Seetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Vigneswara Transport

State Bank of India versus Smt. Potta Balamani

State Bank of India versus Rama Krishna Industries

State Bank of India versus Sri. P. Sachin Kumar

Indian Overseas Bank versus Ms Multi Level Rehab Co.

Canara Bank versus M/S. Ascendant Sun Projects