Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sr. Kolluru Prem Kumar

DRT20 Oct 2023OA/242/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of funds from three defendants, directing them to pay the principal sum along with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to jointly and severally pay Rs.21,96,554 with interest and costs; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and other assets.

State Bank of India versus Sr. Kolluru Prem Kumar — Banking and Recovery | 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

¶3

OA.No.242 of ZO22

¶4

Between :

¶5

State Bank of India. City Retail Assets & Credir Cenrrc, Small (RASMECaCj Medium Enterprises.^-'''""*', Warangal Zonal office, H.No.9- l -2, lpN Road. Warangal - 506 002. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sri Kolluru prem Kumar, s/o Sri komaraiah, a,ged about 76 years, occ: business, Il.No.6-U-85, Sagaraveedhi lianmakonda _ 506 O0l Warangal city, TS.

¶9

Smt Ko llu ru Supriva. !/o 1ri^{Koiluruprem'kumar,} a.ged about 42years, occ: business, H.No.6 U B5, Sagaraveedhi, harrrnakonda _ 506 OO1 Warangal city, TS. 3. Smt Ko llu ru Shobha, w/o Kolluru prem Kumar aged abour oa veari, oiJ: business, H No.6-8- 85, Sagaraveedhi, l-lanmakonda - 506 OO1 Warangal city, 1'S.

¶10

-,.".'.' "'j-i'l*+-.-
,f' a{,.EX "l;.;-]:1
lif ":'? '\
* r '.= -. tr A <br>Dfer nts
B 20ocTttn
1
J],
W.*nq#

¶11

(oA.No.2a2/2022)

¶12

Counsel for the parties: For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶13

Sri Y. Aravind

¶14

Sri T. Ranadhir Singh

¶15

ORDER

¶16

l ' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.21,96,S54./_ (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Ninety Six thousand Five hundred and Fifty Four only) with future interest @) 7 .650/o p.a with monthly rests along with penal inrcrcst tu) 2o/o p.a lrom 19.07.2022 Lill the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to oA.

¶17

As per the averments in the apprication, the Applicant Bank states that the defen<iant No'1 is father of defendant no.2 and husband of defendant no'3 avaired home roan of Rs.20.00 rakhs vide retter of arrangement dated 22.11.201.0. The defendants 1 & 2 executed arrangement letter, memorandum of loan agreement dated 22.11.2010 and defendant no.3 executed third party guarantee agreement for securing the home loan. The dgfendants:.ii o sa le deed document

¶18

scheciure properry o, .* o*;;,":ffi."iffi * ":^t:::',":loaoe a^2oncT2ua ?

¶19

lOA.No.242/2022)

¶20

no.3374/2OO7 over the schedule described property. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence thc applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 09.06.2021 and issued demand notice dated 11.06.2021 and legal notice dated 08.12.2021. Inspite of several requests and dr:nrands, ihc defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶21

Def errdant No.2 called absent and set exparte on 31.01.2023. Shri T. Ranadhir singh filed vakalath for Defendants 1 & 3 but not filed written staternent.

¶22

Shri Dhanunjaya Panda, City Case Officer of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which arc nrarked as Ex.A.1 to A.9.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

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

¶25

Delerrdant No.2 called absent and set exparte. Though vakalath filed for Defendants No.1 & 3 but not filed WS. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined .A1 to A.9. In view of the

¶26

i^{lo lct} .l

¶27

(OA.No.242/20221

¶28

above, I hord that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim made in thc OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶29

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

¶30

The Defendants No.1 to 3 are jointry and severaly riabre to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.21,96,554/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Ninety Six thousand Five hundred and Fifty Four only) witlr futurc intcrest (O 7.65% p.a from 19.07.2022 till the date of realization;

¶31

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

¶32

the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properlies of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

1.4. lssue llecovcry

¶36

(oA.No.24212022)

¶37

15, communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶38

(Dictatcd to thc P.A., transcribed by hcr, correctcd, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this thc 20t', day ol. Oct, 2023)

¶39

sd/_

¶40

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRES!DING OFFICER

¶41

t0 0[Tm
,.,t. * t
'\d.h.,,
:
$!;i"":";
-'-**-'

¶42

Tu.
":uFY
^^^,-(w-
n :ii. *1 ffi,i'r.--o -'' trr''---lr1D. ;,!l I g

State Bank of India v. Sr. Kolluru Prem Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sr. Kolluru 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

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

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

State Bank of India versus Smt Dumpala Srilatha

Arcil versus M/S Slava Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd.