Allowed

State Bank of India v. Smt Supraja Manneni

DRT28 Mar 2023OA/184/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

OA No. 294 of 2022 was filed by State Bank of India against two defendants for recovery of Rs. 25,90,678 with interest arising from a housing loan default. The defendants appeared absent. The Presiding Officer examined the bank representative and documents, found the case established, and allowed the OA.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 25,90,678 with interest; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged properties and defendant's assets; costs awarded.

State Bank of India versus Smt Supraja Manneni — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs THE 2grH DAy oF MAR CH, 2O2g

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.tg4 of 2O2Z

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC bus terminai lomplex, (Commuter Amenity Centre), Koti, Hyderabad.

¶6

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

SmtSuprajaManneni, w/o Sri V. Viswanath, Major, R/o flat no.l04, Konda .eiiden.y Giripuram Main road, Tirupati, Chittoor district - 517 501.

¶10

Also at

¶11

l/o^{D. No.t-74/1, Diguvamagam,} Thavanampalli, Chitt-oor distlsf 7 l2g.

¶12

Sri V. Viswanath, s/o Sri V. Munaswamy Naidu, major, R/o R/o D.No. L-74/t, Diguvamagam,

¶13

Thavanampalli, Chittoor dist_S1 7 t2g.

¶14

Also at:

¶15

a) R/o flat no.104, Konda residency Giripuram Main road, Tirupati, Chittoor district - 517 501.

¶16

b) Hemasri^power Solutions,

¶17

lhop^{no.3, Konda residency,} Tirupati, Chittoor dist 517 SOt

¶18

":",",*Tl<br>fb'"".ffi
il; 2oilARzun ;
W;ffis#

¶19

Defendants

¶20

(oA.No.7sa/20221

¶21

Counsel for the parties: For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶22

Sri P.V. Satyanarayana

¶23

Exparte

¶24

ORDER

¶25

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.25,9o,67gl_ (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Ninety thousand Six hundred and Seventy Eight only) with interest @ 11.70%p.awith monthly rests from date of apprication ti, the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶26

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendants 1 and 2 availed housing loan to an extent of Rs.27.00 lakhs on 12.06.201S and executed necessary security loan documents. To secure the repayment of outstanding liability, the defendants executed Memorandum of roan agreement for home roan granted to public dated 12.06.2015 and agreement to mortgage dated 12.06.2015. Defendant no.2 deposited the tifle deeds bearing regd sale deed no.162O of 2Ot4 dated 08.12.20L4 and Regd Sale 014 dated 08.12.2014 with an intention to create of OA schedule referred properties. After lities, the defendants failed to comply the terms L^.,l ,a *a-S RHiflihw the applicant bank was constrained to classify the -N_1!.{.7'

¶27

(oA.No.184/2022)

¶28

account as NpA on 06.09.2019 and issued legal notice dated 0t.06.2020. Inspite of several requests ancl demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶29

? Defendants were called absent set exparte on 21.LL.2022.

¶30

Sri P, Madhav Rao, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined

¶31

himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are

¶32

marked as Ex.A.1 to A.11.

¶33

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

prayed for?

¶37

7' The defendants were cared absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to 4.11. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has establish made in the OA against the Defendants and h entitled to recover the claim made in the ffi,n ;^2BilAnmr ;

¶38

(oA.No.18a/2022)

¶39

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

¶40

The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.25,9O,67g/_ (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Ninety thousand Six hundred and Seventy Eight only) with interest @ 11.70olop.a from date of application till realization.

¶41

i) The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the mortgaged immovabre properties as described in the schedure to oA towards realization of the debt due,

¶42

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards rearization of the debt due.

¶43

iii) The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶44

iv) The Appricant sha, 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

(
t.
i'.& r.. i
.:- -j
r izi*,
r?, c4 x
,N#

¶48

transcribed by her, corrected. signed and pronounced by me in the open -lFJ of March., 2023)

¶49

TRUF.COPY sd/-
o n,"W, y r^Jf,r",,ff ':liir?

State Bank of India v. Smt Supraja Manneni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Smt Supraja Manneni

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Kisan Rice Industries Ltd.

Punjab National Bank versus Anil Kumar and others

Bank of India versus M/s Maha Laxmi Tractors

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Jayant Mishra

Canara Bank versus M/S Verma Automobiles

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S K S Traders