Allowed

State Bank of India v. Smt Dumpala Srilatha

DRT20 Oct 2023OA/201/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Order dealt with a DRT application by State Bank of India for recovery of an outstanding home loan. The Tribunal found that the bank established its case in the absence of a written statement from the defendant. The application was allowed, directing the defendant to pay the principal sum, interest, and penal interest, and authorizing proceedings against mortgaged and personal properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 20,36,831/-, interest at 10.10% p.a., and penal interest at 20% p.a. authorized. Recovery certificate issued. Proceeds against mortgaged property and defendant's personal property allo

State Bank of India versus Smt Dumpala Srilatha — Specific Performance | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 2OTH DAY OF OCTOBER' 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER OA.No.2O1 of 2OZ2

¶3

Between :

¶4

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

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Smt Dumpala Srilatha, w/o Sri Ramesh, aged about 45 yrs, occ: business, H.No.4-1-298, Subhash nagar, Kothur, Hanmakonda - 506 001 Warangal city - TS.

¶8

DeFendant

¶9

Counsel for the Pa rties:

¶10

For the Applicant

¶11

Sri Y. Aravind

¶12

For the Defendant Shri Ranadhir Singh Thakur

¶13

(OA. No.201l2022)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

1, The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2O,7l,l63l- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Seventy One thousand Seven hundred and Sixty three onty) i.e., a sum of Rs.20,36,831/- and Rs.34,932/- with interest @10.100/o p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest @ 2olo p.a from r0.06.2022 till the date of rearization and in default for sare of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶16

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that the defendant avaired home loan of Rs.24,00 lakhs and suraksha coverage limit of Rs.85,000/- on 11.08,2014. To secure due repayment of loan, the defendant executed Home loan application dated 02'08.2oL4, agreement retter dated 11.8.2014 and memorandum of loan agreement for home roan dated 11.0g.2014. The defendant created equitable mortgage of schedule property by deposit of said Regd Sale deed no.2972/20t4 dated 24.06.zor4. After avairing the loan facilities, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 24,06,2O2L and issued demand notice dated t7.07.2021. Inspite of

¶17

:
I
i o t,r,t \frJ

¶18

(OA. No.201l2022)

¶19

several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶20

Shri Ranadhir Singh Thakur filed vakalath for defendant but not filed

¶21

written statement. Hence the right of filing of WS was forfeited on 08.03.2023.

¶22

Shri Dha n u njaya Panda, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined

¶23

himself as AW.1 and exh ibited releva nt documents, which are marked

¶24

as Ex.A.1 to A.9.

¶25

5, Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

The point that a rise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶27

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant as prayed

¶28

for?

¶29

7' counser for defendant fired vakarath but not fired ws. 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 A,9. In view
of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their craim
made in the oA against the Defendant and hence the Appricant Bank is
entitred to recover the c-1aj m made in'the oA with future interest and
lt-" ii. I Ja
costs -::'r ' A <br>{ 1i
r :aoqr2m .:ji
r-\ i'r' -1"i' j,
, '5. :! \,'
.:':: rT.i'
4j^',-.' ^'j;. -,--d.' ...:,,1-'
-'.al)-- ' I'v!'i -. '-.-' - ":."
'\jUi :.t1r :'i ';.'r
:r--Jr' -- i - -. --:::;.- .i::-'

¶30

(oA.No.2ot/2Oz2l

¶31

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

¶32

The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2Ot7L,763/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Seventy One thousand Seven hundred and Sixty three only) i.e., a sum of Rs.20,36,g31/_ and Rs.34,932/- with interest @10.10% p.a from tO.06.2022 till the date of rea lization ;

¶33

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶34

the Applicant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶35

The Applicant Bank is entiued to the costs of the OA.

¶36

13, The Applicant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order,

¶37

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶38

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned,

¶39

(Dictated to the p A , transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2Oth day of Oct, 2023)

¶40

sd/_

¶41

,/& (G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
/#P
r*,
IiT l RUE COPY
;b
on"M|v

State Bank of India v. Smt Dumpala Srilatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Smt Dumpala Srilatha

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

State Bank of India versus Sri Madishetty Suresh

Mr Thota Murali Krishna versus National Trust Housing Finance Ltd.

City Union Bank Ltd, versus M/S. Sri Venkateswara Motors

State Bank of India versus Sr. Kolluru Prem Kumar

M S Sri Kalyana Chakravarthy Rice Mill versus State Bank of India

Arcil versus M/S Slava Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd.