Allowed

State Bank of India v. Vinay Naidu

DRT26 Apr 2023OA/293/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad allowed an Originating Application filed by State Bank of India to recover a loan amount of Rs.21,26,725 from the defaulting borrower Gali Vinay Naidu, noting the defendant was absent and the bank's evidence was sufficient.

What did the court decide?

Debt of Rs.21,26,725 with future interest @9.25% p.a. from 18.09.2022 till realization; costs of OA; issue of recovery certificate.

State Bank of India versus Vinay Naidu — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26rH DAy OF ApRILt 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.293 of 2o22

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Retail Assets Central Processing Centre, Himayathnagar, 3-6-263 & 264,3'd floor, CCPL Sterling building, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mr.GaliVinay Naidu, S/o GaliJagannadham Naidu, Aged 39 yrs, occ: Pvt service, Flat no.502, NMR Diya Residency, Vinayakanagar, New Hafeezpet, Hyderabad - 500 049.

¶10

Defendant

¶11

Counsel for the Parties:

¶12

For the Applicant

¶13

For the Defendant

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the

¶15

26 APRM ants for

¶16

recovery of a total sum of Twenty One Lakhs Twenty six thousand seven Hundred and Twenty five

¶17

(OA.No.293/2022)

¶18

only) with future interest @9.25olo p.a with monthly rests from t8.09.2022 till the date of realization.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant is the borrower who availed car loan facility for a sum of Rs.34.00 lakhs vide arrangement letter dated 02.06.20L7. The defendant executed a lon cum hypothecation agreement dated 02.06.20t7 in favour of Applicant Bank. The Applicant bank submits that the defendant paid EMIS irregularly from the date of sanction and the defendant paid part of loan amounts in 2017,2018,20t9,2020, 2021 and 2022. 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 27.11.202L and issued legal notice dated t4.08.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶20

Defendant was called absent set exparte on 08.03.2023.

¶21

Shri D. Shravan Kumar, Manager of the Applicant Ba nk examined

¶22

himself as AW.1 and exhlblted relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A*'9'^t' : t "'::t'^'ii.. l':,^\.'. :

¶23

Heard the Ld. Cou nsel.fQl tfe Applicant Ben[. ,,:

¶24

l.,. .i -.: i r' .,, i-.
...'...
, i."t.:'.' i'

¶25

(oA. No.293/2022)

¶26

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?

¶27

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.

¶28

¶29

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

¶30

The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2L,26,725l- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Twenty Six thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty five only) with future interest @9.25olo p.a from 18.09.2022 till realization.

¶31

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

¶32

ii) The Applicant the costs of the OA.

¶33

iii) The Appl within two weeks from the date of of order. 2 r tst

¶34

(oA. No.293/2022)

¶35

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶36

11. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶37

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of April., 2023)

sdl-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

TRUE^COPY I a.-G-.*) . Assr.^Resistta, ?Ll^Oq lv>-S DRT.I,HYDERABAD, I

¶42

¶43

State Bank of India v. Vinay Naidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Vinay Naidu

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

Bank of India versus M/S. Spr Industries

Idbi Bank versus M S Supriya Medical Hall

Mrs Asha So Damodhar Shelke versus Aavas Financiers Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Venkat Reddy

State Bank of India versus Smt.Kommu Sujatha

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Sasaram Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.