Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Chennaboina Naresh

DRT30 Oct 2023OA/337/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the State Bank of India against non-paying borrowers. The bank had advanced loans which were classified as NPAs leading to the creation of a mortgage on title deeds. The court found the bank's claim substantiated and ordered joint and several recovery.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to jointly and severally pay Rs. 49,66,093/- with future interest; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and defendant assets.

State Bank of India versus Sri Chennaboina Naresh — Specific Performance | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3OTH DAY OF OCTOBER' 2c23

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.337 of 2022

¶5

Between :

¶6

State Bank of India, SARB-1, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its Chief Manager Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sri Chennaboina Naresh, s/o Lingaiah, aged 34 years, occ: gold business, male, H.No.4-2-311 /34/A/t, Srin ivasa nagar, Khammam - 507 003. 2. Smt Chennaboina Jyothi, w/o Chennaboina Naresh, aged 33 years, occ: gold business, female, H. No.4-2-31 1 / 34/ A/ 7, Srinivasa nagar, Khammam - 507 003. Defenda nts

¶9

Counsel for the Pa rties: For the Applicant A. Srinivas Reddy For the Defendants

¶10

(oA.No.337 of 2022)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.49,66,093/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Sixty Six thousand and Ninety Three only) i.e., a sum of (Rs.47,93,152/- + Rs.1,72,94L/-) with future interest @ 10.75olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶13

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that the defendants availed home loan for a sum of Rs.40,7O,O00/_ and Suraksha loan of Rs.1,70,000/- on 09.09.2019. The defendants executed letter of confirmation for creation of mortgage by depositing title deeds vide sare deed doc.no, L1,g5z/2olg, memorandum of roan agreement and agreement to mortgage dated og.0g.2o21g. To secure due repayment of loan, the defendants created mortgage by deposit of title deeds over the schedure mentioned property. After avairing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA on 05.11.20 11 .AndlisEuet.dhreand notice dated l2,lL.2}2t. Inspite / r,j,., . -.:D^1r dr.+\ ,x; , 3 0 }tT i$J, .:]l -,^!i ,.i/{ ,:.:'/i .." .,/./ {^i. . . "-r +-;...,.'-'.: -1 ,"-.J' ",':4'

¶14

(oA,No.337 of 2022)

¶15

of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶16

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 04.07.2023.

¶17

smt K. Geetha Lakshmi, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined herself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A,14,

¶18

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank,

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Defendants called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and she exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.14. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶22

"t-y''
,{,.'-
/./ ;',
// fx'
{{"'g
-1 .,

¶23

(OA.No.337 of 2022)

¶24

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

¶25

The Defendants are joinily and severaily riabre to pay to the Appricant Bank a total sum of Rs.49,66,O93/- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Sixty Six thousand and Ninety Three only) i.e., a sum of (Rs.47,93,L52/- + Rs.L,72,g4L/-) with future interest @ 10.75olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization ;

¶26

10' The Applicant Bank is entitred to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶27

the Applicant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶28

12, The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶29

The Applicant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order,

¶30

Issue Recovery certificate accord ing ly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶32

(Dictated to the p by her, court on this .2023) :;0 0[Tm

¶33

in the open

¶34

sd/_
(G. coPtcHAND)
PRESIDING OFF]CER
.IRUE COPY
U5ffi*r'
rF.r ,esst. : . 1,,!','. sYftsrrar .:. .t,'}tl[ )

State Bank of India v. Sri Chennaboina Naresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Chennaboina Naresh

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

Similar cases

State Bank of India, versus Sri v. Ram Mohan

State Bank of India versus Smt. Dumpala Ramadevi

Bank of India versus Sri Mohammed Abdul Waheed

State Bank of India versus Nakshatra Enterprises

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S Dynamic Cables

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Chetana Packing Industries