Partly allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr . Ramesh Madhuri

DRT19 Jul 2023OA/245/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an OA filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a housing loan default. The defendant was absent and the bank proved its claim via witness and documents. The court ordered payment of the outstanding sum, interest, and costs, and authorized proceedings against mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.36,39,499/- with interest and costs; authority to proceed against mortgaged property.

State Bank of India versus Mr . Ramesh Madhuri — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY' 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶3

OA.No.245 of 2022

¶4

Between :

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, (SARB), second floor, TSRTC commuter Amenity Centre, Bus terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad. Represented by its authorised signatory

¶6

Applica nt

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Mr. Ramesh Maduri, Aged 52 years, occ: business, R/o H. No. 1 1-27 -22, Kotaw ada, Pochamma Maidan, Hanamkonda - 506 001. Defendant $rQi min Mohammed Rafiq e -he Applicant Bank fited the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.36,39,499l- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Thirty Nine thousand Four hundred and Ninety Nine

¶9

loA.No.24sl2022l

¶10

only) with subsequent interest @ 8.20olo p.a with monthly rests along with penal interest @ additional 2o/o p.a from date of application 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 Applicant Bank states that the defendant availed housing loan of Rs.38,21,000/- on 72.02.2O2O. To secure due repayment of above loan, the defendant executed agreement letter for housing finance, memorandum of loan agreement for home loan, agreement to mortgage dated 12.02.2020. As a security towards repayment oF housing loan, the defendant mortgaged immovable property more fully described in the schedule to OA. 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 and issued legal notice dated 11.07.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶12

Defendant was called absent and set exparte on 77.02.2Q23.

¶13

4, Bank examined himself as AW.1 and which are marked as

¶14

.i--

¶15

(oA.No.2aslzo22l

¶16

Ex.A.1 to A.10. part satisfaction memo filed by applicant bank for a sum of Rs.4,62,4OO/-.

¶17

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

7' The defendant was cailed absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.10. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their claim made in the OA against the Defendant and hence the Applicant Bank is entitred to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶21

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

¶22

1. The Defendant pay to the Applicant Bank a total

¶23

Rs.36,39,499lirty Six Lakhs Thirty Nine thousand

¶24

Four hundred Nine; with subsequent interest @

¶25

*
i9 JU! ,rm ?
A.I
:,1

¶26

(oA.No.24sl2022)

¶27

8.20olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization LESS a sum of Rs.4,62,40Ol- as received from defenda nt.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

10, Issue Recovery certificate accord ing ly,

¶33

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶34

by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open )uly , 2023)

¶35

sd/-

¶36

(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
TRUE, GOPY
Drit ^"b#:\x.,r. ffyi1E: -1AD.

State Bank of India v. Mr . Ramesh Madhuri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr . Ramesh Madhuri

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

M/S. Mallikarjuna Purified Water Plant, versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Karigar Furnitures

Bank of India versus Mr. Gali Vijaya Krishna

State Bank of India versus M S Kavyasri Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Sri.Taraka Rama Industries

State Bank of India versus Rama Krishna Industries