Allowed

State Bank of India v. Prem Kumar

DRT22 Jun 2023OA/199/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the OA filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues amounting to Rs.33,38,746/- consisting of home loan and insurance premiums, along with interest and costs, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.33,38,746/- with interest; Applicant bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and person/properties; costs awarded.

State Bank of India versus Prem Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs rHE 22ND DAy oF JUNE, zoz3

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.199 of 2OZ2

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Retail Assets & Small Medium Enterprises, City Credit Centre, (RASMECCC), Warangal Zonal office, H.No,9-1-2, JpN road, Warangal - 506 002. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant ,t

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sri Kolluru^prem Kumar, s/o Sri Komaraiah,

¶9

l,g-gd 9b9ut^{76 years, occ: business,} H,No,6-8-85, Sagaraveedhi, Hanamakonda - 506 001, Warangal city, Telangana State,

¶10

Smt Kolluru Supriya, D/o Sri Kolluru premkumar,

¶11

lg:d 1b9u!_+Z^{years, occ: business,} H. No.6-8-85, Sagaraveedhi,

¶12

Hanamakonda - 506 001,

¶13

Warangal city, Telangana State.

¶14

Defendants

¶15

+nor tfepgmf,Epnt, ,i j
I l-l ,
;\ n.Y/
ud6

¶16

Sri Y. Aravind Exparte

¶17

(oA.No.199/20221

¶18

ORDER

¶19

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.33,3g,746l_ (Rupees Thirty three lakhs Thirty Eight thousand Seven hundred and forty six only) i.e., a sum of Rs.32,79,084/- in Home roan and a sum of Rs.59,662l_ in Suraksha Home loan Insurance with future interest @ 9.750lop.a with monthly rests along with penal interest @ 2o/o p.a from 70.06.2022 till realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶20

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that the defendants herein are father and daughter who avaired home roan of Rs.40.00 lakhs and Suraksha Insurance coverage of Rs.86,000/_ vide arrangement retter dated 21.0g.2015. To secure repayment of the said roan, the defendants executed Home roan apprication, arrangement letter and memorandum of loan agreement for home roan granted to pubric dated 21.0g.2015, The defendants created equitabre mortgage of schedure property in favour of Appricant bank on 21'09'2015 by deposit of originar registered sare deed document :. no.2939 9,: 2:15 dated 30.06.2015 as a security for due repayment of roan amoui.rts' , After avairng the roan facirities, the defendants faired '^{.')tto complythe terms of sanction,} hence the applicant bank was l't lron'trlii[il to -classify the account u, ,oo on 27.06.2021 and issued : i;, .^'. rt' u 2 .^'.,.rlt'ri'. ..i', '',.,,(:il' :',^'' ll)''

¶21

(OA.No.199/2022)

¶22

demand notice dated 31.O7.2021. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶23

? Defendants were called absent and set exparte on 13.02.2023.

¶24

Sri Lakavath Narender Naik, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.g.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

prayed for?

¶29

The defendants were ca'ed absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1 who is the official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.9. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and {3Oli..nt^{Bank is entitled to recover the} claim made in the r6 ...'\ and costs. rP ^4. . 2 In itiB I&Itt, tne.^(,. t OA is allowed with costs, as under: i' , q . , r -,ij.iV

¶30

"&uuP

¶31

(oA. No.199/2022)

¶32

The Defendants are joinily and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total Rs.33,38,746/- (Rupees Thirty three lakhs Thirty Eight thousand Seven hundred and forty six only) i.e., a sum of Rs.32,79,084/- in Home loan and a sum of Rs.59,662l_ in suraksha Home loan Insurance with future interest @ 9.75o/op,a from 70,06.2022 till the date of realization.

¶33

i) The Applicant bank is entiUed to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in the schedure to oA towards rearization of its dues.

¶34

ii) the Appricant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

Issue Recovery certificate acco rd in g ly.

¶38

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶39

l3_l,liir#H;i*il:.:^.:,o."1brl"j::orrected,^{sisned and pronounced by mein theopen} lune,2023)

¶40

'u* \ -I'RUE POPY sd/-
; S$'* (rra: , (G. GoPrcHANrGOPTCHANDT
, Z t Jutl zUJ I ^ f:,;ll$;,;e:#H pnesroir,ri oiilcr-ri
r':., *r r8.$i 4

State Bank of India v. Prem Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Prem Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karur Vysya Bank versus M S Splendor Insulated Products

State Bank of India versus M S. Datta Filling Station

Bank of India versus M/S. Vijaya Enterprises

Karur Vysya Bank versus M S Atop Copper Wires

Karur Vysya Bank versus M S Crescent Insulations

Union Bank of India versus Mrs, Bingi Jyothsna