Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri. Krishnadhi Raghu

DRT8 Jun 2023OA/243/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Original Application, the bank sought recovery of loans totaling approximately Rs. 29.46 lakhs inclusive of interest and penal charges with sale of mortgaged property. The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the application, held the debt was established, and directed recovery from both the mortgaged property and the defendant's personal assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay total dues of Rs. 29,46,972/-; Applicant Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged schedule and defendant's person/properties for realization; Recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Sri. Krishnadhi Raghu — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE' 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.243 OF 2022

¶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

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sri Krishnadhi raghu, s/o Sri Kanakaiah, aged about 36 yrs, occ: business, H.No.3-5412, saptagirl colony, Waddepally, Hanmakonda - 506 001 Warangal City - TS. Defenda nt JUI @] ,i s-s, Counsel for the Pa rties: ,*ju.a+f+)y' For the Applicant ,shYi For the Defendant Ex pa rte

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.29,46,972l- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Forty Six thousand Nine hundred and Seventy Two only) i.e., a sum of Rs.29,18,414l- under housing loan limit and a sum of Rs.28,55B/- under Suraksha loan facility with interest @ 9.400/o p.a along with penal interest @ 2olo p.a with monthly rests from 79.07.2022 till realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶11

As per the averments in the application, the Appllcant Bank states that the defendants availed housing loan limit of Rs.26.00 lakhs and Suraksha coverage of Rs.52,000/- vide arrangement letter dated 12,05.2016. The defendant created equitable mortgage of schedule property in favour of Applicant bank on 31,05.2016 by deposit of above registered sale deed document no.1B4B/2016 dated 12.05.2016 as security for due repayment of loan amounts. After availing 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 12.tL,202L and issued demand notice dated t3.L2.2OZt. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear . Hence th is OA.

¶12

absent and set exparte on 30.01.2023.

¶13

i+. 6^{pnfil[{ffi}atn} nder Naik, City case officer of the Applicant Bank as AW.1 and exhibited releva nt documents, which

¶14

.A.1 to A.9.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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.9. 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.

¶18

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

¶19

The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total Rs.29,46,972/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Forty Six thousand Nine hundred and Seventy Two only) i.e., a sum of Rs.29,18,414l- under housing loan limit and a sum of Rs.28,55B/under Suraksha loan facility with interest @ 9.40olo p.a from 79.07.2022 till the date of realization.

¶20

i) entitled to proceed against the mortgaged Schedule to the OA towards realization of

¶21

OOJU!,l

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶26

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶27

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of June, 2023)

sd/_

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

TRUE COPY

Assr.EIiisrrrrlIl 14 NP,T.I, HYDERABAd.

State Bank of India v. Sri. Krishnadhi Raghu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri. Krishnadhi Raghu

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

City Union Bank Limited versus Sri Mekala Satyanarayana

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Fraternity Interactive Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Srinivas Reddy

State Bank of India versus Sri . Nallathigala Naresh