Allowed

State Bank of India v. Smt. K.S.J.K. Lakshmi

DRT5 Oct 2023OA/332/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Order allowed the Debts Recovery Tribunal application filed by SBI for recovery of loan dues. The single judge held the bank established its claim and restored the OA with costs, directing defendants to pay the principal, interest, and allowing proceedings against mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to jointly and severally pay Rs.53,25,442 with future interest; recover from mortgaged and other properties; issue Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Smt. K.S.J.K. Lakshmi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE sTH DAY OF OCTOBER' 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.332 of 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of I nd ia, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-lI (SARB-II), first floor, Opp Sandhya Theatre, RTC cross road, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Smt K.S.J.K. Lakshmi, w/o Sri K. Lakshmana Sastry, aged about 54 years, female, occ: private service, rr-14-262/123/ro2_D, Manjeera Heights-2, Chitra layout, Behind Ranga reddy district court, LB nagar, Hyderabad - 5OO 074.

¶9

And

¶10

Flat no.30B, 3'd Floor, block-A, H. No.04-79lA/308, splendour Complex, Gajularamaram, Quthbullapur, Medchal Malkajgiri district-500 055.

¶11

Sri K. Lakshmana Sastry, s/o Late Sri K.S. Rao, aged about 61 years, male, occ: advocate, 77-14262/723/r02_D,

¶12

lo^{A,No.332/2022)}

¶13

Manjeera Heights -2, Chitra Layout, Behind Ranga Reddy district Court, LB nagar, Hyderabad - SOO 074.

¶14

And

¶15

Flat no.30B, 3'd floor, block-A, H. No.04-79lA/308, splendour Complex, Gajularamaram, Quthbullapur, Medchal Malkajgiri district-500 055.

¶16

Defendants

¶17

Counsel for the Pa rties:

¶18

For the Applicant

¶19

For the Defendants

¶20

Sri G. Prabhakar Sarma

¶21

Exparte

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.53,25,442l_ (Rupees Fifty three lakhs Twenty five thousand Four hundred and forty two only)i.e a) a sum of Rs,39,02,984/- under Home loan account No.37900061988 with interest @ 8.20olo p.a with monthly rests; b)a sum of Rs.14,22,458/- under Home Top Up loan account No.40426514460 with interest @ 9,500/o p.a with monthly rests; from date of filing of oA till the date of realization and in default for

¶24

loA.No.332/2022|}

¶25

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants No.1 & 2 are wife and husband avaired home roan of Rs,45,00 lakhs and home loan insurance coverage o Rs.6,64,000/_ totaling a sum of Rs.51,64,000/- vide arrangement letter dated 21.08.2018. To secure due repayment of loan, the defendants executed memorandum of loan agreement dated 23.0g,2018. The defendants avaired Home roan of Rs.45.00 rakhs for purchase of schedule mentioned property through regd sale deed document no.19318/2018 dated 31.08.2018. The defendant no.1 created equitable mortgage by deposit of Regd Sale deed document no'19318/2018 over immovabre property more fuily described in the schedule to oA' After avairing the roan facirities, the defendants faired to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was

¶26

constrained to crassify the account as NpA and issued regar notice dated 20.09.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶27

Defendants 1 & 2 called absent and set exparte on 03.04.2023.

¶28

Shri Ch. Raghavendra Rao, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1to A,17. .',..,

¶29

.',.., ..i. 3

¶30

(oA. No.332/2022)

¶31

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

prayed for?

¶35

7 ' counser for defendants fired vakarath but not fired wS. 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.17. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitred to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶36

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

¶37

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.53,25,442/- (Rupees Fifty three lakhs Twenty five thousand Four hundred and forty two only)i.e a) a sum of Rs.39,02,984/_ under Home loan account No,37900061988 with interest @ 8.20olo p.a;

¶38

..I:.-ti^{t'lbh</sup> ,',-,fr" 'r;" -d+ B\ ;^o[orTzm l)i &u*'"&il}

¶39

(oA. No.332/2022)

¶40

b)a sum of Rs.I4,22,458/- under Home Top Up loan acco u nt No.40426514460 with interest @ 9.50o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization^.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

The Appricant sha, fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶45

Issue Recovery certificate accord ingly.

¶46

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶47

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open courr on this the 5th day ", o.,, ,tJrli',

¶48

,f"*.H<br>3 osocr2ll8 :i
.,'iI, o,t ., #,t'
'.n"+- .,ii'=*lrlr
(Qa-. -a'. ;', ;': . ;.r+Yl
,;l.i:r,s'i.lV

¶49

sd/(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶50

TRUE GOPY
"#:rffi7

State Bank of India v. Smt. K.S.J.K. Lakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Smt. K.S.J.K. Lakshmi

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 M/S. Rai Enterprises

Canara Bank versus M/S. Rav Smittens ( Opc) Private Ltd.

State Bank of India, versus M/S. Krishna Metal Works

Uco Bank versus Mr. Yalavula Ramu

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Vasantham Swapna

State Bank of India versus Sri. Gouri Narasimha Reddy