Allowed

State Bank of India v. Vedere Laxmi Vamsheedhar Reddy

DRT10 Jan 2023OA/152/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Originating Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a housing loan and SBI Suraksha limit along with interest and costs against two defendants upon their absence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs.49,59,718 with interest at 11.15% p.a. and costs; recovery certificate issued; proceedings against mortgaged property allowed.

State Bank of India versus Vedere Laxmi Vamsheedhar Reddy — Cheque Dishonour | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE lOrH DAy OF JANUARy,2O2g

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.l52 of 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC bus terminal complex, (commuter Amenity Centre), Koti, Hyderabad .

¶7

Represented by its Chief Manager Sri D. Shankar

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

SmtVedere Laxmi Vamsheedhar Reddy, major, W/o Sri Vedere Laxmi Narayan Reddy, R/o H.No.2-234/B/C/t, west city, Madikonda, Kazipet - 506 142.

¶11

Also at

¶12

R/o H.No.30-2-684/3, West city Madikonda, Near^prasad Hospital, Kazipet, Warangal - 506 L42.

¶13

¶14

R/o,H. No-2-13 4/ Bl C/ L, west city, Kazipet'- 506 I42.

¶15

684/3, West city r Prasad Hospital, r n tfnll58#"i; | - 506 L42.

¶16

Defendants

¶17

(OA.No.152 of 2022)

¶18

Counsel for the parties: For the Applicant Sri P.V. Satyanarayana For the Defendants Exparte

¶19

ORDER

¶20

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.49,59,71gl_ (Rupees Forty Nine lakhs Fifty nine thousand Seven hundred and Eighteen only) i.e., a sum of Rs.49,34,140/_ for HL loan limit and Rs.25,577/_ for SBI Suraksha loan limit with interest @ 11,15% p.a from date of firing of oA ti' the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants 1 & 2 availed housing loan of Rs.52.00 lakhs along with funding of home loan insurance cover limit of Rs.g2,230/_ on 21.11.2016 for purchase of OA schedule property. To secure the repayment of outstanding liability of said loan account, the

¶22

,^{d:l:l"d:rtt.ex.ecu!-edmemorandumof loan agreement} for home loan ..,.,. ,..^..,.

¶23

,r ^6\ ulriur"nttgi\rortsas

¶24

i' i. ;;*^{/iuna ag-reementi'*ti'\nortsag}^{edated 21.11.2016.Defendant} No,1 : 'ft"?[fiollf^{titdpeeobearins Resd sare deed no.1653eor 2016} 30'11'3F$[espect or mortsased schedure property and the .\4

¶25

%,fft shg recorded bv wav of memorandum for recording

¶26

&ffiifj,Yen

¶27

(OA.No.152 of 2022)

¶28

creation of mortgage by deposit of tifle deeds on t5.72.2076. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA on 75.04.2021 and issued demand notice dated L6.04.202L and legal notice on 30.04.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶29

Defendants were called absent set exparte on 16.12.2022.

¶30

Shri A. Madhav Rao, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.11.

¶31

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶32

R The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as

¶33

prayed for?

¶34

called absent and set exparte. To substantiate nt Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank i^{;L 0",'Jfl,#J} ""6 e exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to Q*u-,red the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has

¶35

(oA.No.1s2 of 2022)

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

The Defendants 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.49,59,71gl_ (Rupees Forty Nine rakhs Fifty nine thousand seven hundred and Eighteen onry) i.e., a sum of Rs.49,34,140 /- for HLroan rimit and Rs.25,577/- for SBI Suraksha loan limit with interest @ 11.15% p.afrom date of filing of OA till realization.

¶39

i) The Applicant Bank is entiUed to proceed against the mortgaged immovable property as described in the schedule to OA towards

¶40

realization of the debt due.

¶41

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person

¶42

defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶43

{lP entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶44

a cost memo within two weeks from the

¶45

date of receipt of order.

¶46

¶47

(OA.No.152 of 2022)

¶48

10. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶49

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶50

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the loth day of Jan., 2023)

¶51

sdl-

¶52

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶53

ffi'<br>n, r+ di,r..^* 10 JIil 7m :
fure,-"'.tty

¶54

:::,m,,

State Bank of India v. Vedere Laxmi Vamsheedhar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Vedere Laxmi Vamsheedhar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Prudvi Raj

State Bank of India versus Madhu

State Bank of India versus Anjaiah

Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank versus Sanjay Kumar Singh

Idbi Bank versus Sahab Singh Yadav and Others

Idbi Bank versus M/S Ambey Constructions