Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Nallathigala Surender

DRT1 Aug 2023OA/233/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by State Bank of India to recover a home loan debt of approximately Rs. 29.39 lakhs from the defendant, who failed to comply with loan terms, validating the bank's claim based on documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 29,39,975 with future interest @ 9.55% p.a. from 07.07.2022, costs, and right to proceed against mortgaged property.

State Bank of India versus Sri Nallathigala Surender — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST'2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.233 ot 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Retail Assets and Small Medium Enterprises, City Credit Centre, (RASMECCC), Warangal zonal Office, H.No.9-1-2, J.P.N. Road, Warangal - 506 002. Represented by its Chief Manager Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Sri Nallathigala Su render, S/o Sri Sambaiah, aged about 32 years, Occ: business, H.No.2-33414, Bank Colony, Hasanparthy (M) Hanmakonda, Warangal - 506 OO1. Defendant

¶8

Counsel for the Parties:

¶9

For the Applicant Sri Y. Aravlnd

¶10

For the Defendant Expa rte

¶11

¶12

resent OA against Defendant for ,39,975/-^(Rupees Twenty Nine

¶13

(oA.No.233/2022)

¶14

Lakhs Thirty Nine thousand Nine hundred and Seventy^Five

¶15

only) with future interest @ 9.550/o^p.a I 2o/o^{p.a penalinterest} with monthly rests from L9.07,2022 till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶16

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant availed home loan of Rs.22.00 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 14.01.2016 for purchase of open plot through registered sale deed document no.5229 of 2015 dated 09.12.2015. The defendant created equitable mortgage of schedule property in favour of Applicant bank on t4.O7.2016 by depositing registered sale deed document no.5229/2015 as a security for due repayment of the said loan amount. After availing the loan facility, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA on 05.09.2021 and issued demand notice dated 12.77.202L. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶17

Defendant was called absent and set exparte on 11.01.2023.

¶18

o 1{rrom j}
'.q *y

¶19

(oA.No.233/2022)

¶20

Shri Dhanunjaya Panda, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.8.

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶22

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant as prayed for?

¶23

The defendant was called 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 A.B. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendant and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs,

¶24

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

¶25

The Defendant is riabre to pay to the Appricant Bank a totar Rs.29,39,975/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Thirty Nine

¶26

:
.{

¶27

(OA.No.233/2022)

¶28

thousand Nine hundred and Seventy Five only) with future interest @ 9.55o/o p.a from 19.07.2022 till the date of realization.

¶29

i) fhe Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in Schedule to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶30

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶31

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

¶32

iv) The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶33

Issue Recovery certificate a cco rd ing ly.

¶34

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶35

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of August, 2023)

¶36

sd/-

¶37

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶38

ff^*u<br>{(; olrr;s,m _t
""'q#ty'

¶39

:::,:,ffi[.,,,

State Bank of India v. Sri Nallathigala Surender

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Nallathigala Surender

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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Krishna Extrusion Technics

Union Bank of India versus Shri Vadla Jaya Prakash

Indian Overseas Bank versus Ms Multi Level Rehab Co.

Bank of India versus Shashi Pet Industries

Union Bank of India versus Rajabhadraiah

M/S. Uco Bank, versus M/S. Bhagya Laxmi Enterprises