Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Vatte Krishnaiah

DRT13 Jan 2023OA/302/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an order application filed for recovery of a personal loan of Rs. 20,77,129/- along with interest, the Debt Recovery Tribunal held that the applicant bank established its claim through a banker's examination. Consequently, the order application was allowed, rendering the defendant liable to pay the principal sum with future interest and permit the bank to proceed against mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

The respondent is directed to pay the applicant a sum of Rs. 20,77,129/- with future interest; the applicant is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property and the respondent's person and prope

State Bank of India versus Sri Vatte Krishnaiah — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 13rH DAy OF JANUARY,2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.3O2 ol2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-1, 2nd floor, TSRTC bus terminal compiex, (commuter Amenity Centre), Koti, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sri VatteKrishnaiah, s/o Balaiah, aged 34 yrs, occ: business, H.No.11-68, Gandhinagar, Suryapet town, Suryapet district, TS- 508 213.

¶9

Counsel for the Parties:

¶10

For the Applicant

¶11

For the Defendant

¶12

Defendant
/J. --.' 't'- :t t;l
tF
*p
JifP'?tl3
ORDER

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for

¶14

recovery of a total sum of Rs.2O,77,L29/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Seventy Seven thousand One hundred and Twenty nine

¶15

only) with future interest @ 12.55% p.a (10.55o/o along with 2yo penal interest) with monthly rests from 25.08.2022 till the date of

¶16

(oA.No.1712021)

¶17

realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant availed personal loan of Rs.20.OO lakhs vide arrangement letter dated 05.09.2015 against the property more fully described in OA. To secure the loan facility, the defendant deposited the title deed bearing document no.9362/20l6 of SRO Suryapet on 07.02.2020 bearing document no.L6t4/2020 of SRO, Suryapet. 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 04.06.2022 and issued demand notice dated L0.06.2022 and legal notice on 25.08.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶19

Defendant was called absent set exparte on 30.L2.2022.

¶20

Shri Bhushanam, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as

¶21

AW.1 and exhibited relgva{tt-:ddturnents, which are marked as .r'7"-:€{l^{'l -:)".-} - .i Ex.A.l to A.13. .;r..1*^" . l- j ,1 'i ':: 1r rr,,^_.r..1 "ⁱ 5. Heard the Ld. Counselfor the Applicant Baik.j

¶22

(oA.No.17l2021)

¶23

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?

¶24

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.Al to A.13. 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.

¶25

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

¶26

The Defendantis liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2O,77,L29/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Seventy Seven thousand One hundred and Twenty nine only) with future interest @ 10.55o/o p.a from 25.08.2022 till realization.

¶27

i) proceed against the mortgaged in the schedule to OA towards -:., realizatliin of the debt due. i:^{1 3 JA'r ?on} I '}' r* ,.rii '-.?.&!g

¶28

(oA.No.17l2021)

¶29

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entifled 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

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶33

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶34

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of Jan., 2023)

¶35

sdl-

¶36

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶37

I RUE COPY

¶38

Asst. Nrg(f$nr

¶39

State Bank of India v. Sri Vatte Krishnaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Vatte Krishnaiah

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

Chintakuntla Sreenu versus State Bank of India

Ms Goenka Jewellers versus Uco Bank

Ravi Ganpatrao Pokley versus Ncml Finance Private Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Farooq Ahmed

Mr Virendra So Rajeshwarprasad versus Union Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Sri Vawesh Prakash