Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Madishetty Suresh

DRT19 Oct 2023OA/351/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application. The defendant, legal heir of the original borrower, was found liable to pay Rs. 31,48,874/- including principal, GECL limit, and interest with a recovery certificate issued.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs. 31,48,874/- plus interest at 11.650% p.a. from 19.10.2022. Recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Sri Madishetty Suresh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶3

OA.No,351 of 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Retail Assets & Small Medium Enterprises, City Cred it Centre, (RASMECCC), Warangal Zonal office, H.No.9-1-2, JPN road, Warangal-506 002. Represented by its Chief Manager Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Sri Madishetty Suresh, s/o Keshavulu, male, aged about 37 years, occ: business, H.No.,72-8-247, Santhoshimata colony, g reater Warangal City & district - 506 002.

¶8

Defenda nt

¶9

Counsel for the Parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendant

Sri Y. Aravind

Expa rte

ORDER

1, The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendant for -: recovery ..of .?..1ft_al sun,"!(. Rs.31,48,8 74/ - (Rupees Thirty one .^.;ir" it, i\ a"L6s;gprty Eagi$i thousahi eignt Hundred and Seventy Four .r *r . \ --J :^x, d^{''.ot-^,-} o 1 9 ocT zm -".".S1, /i-.i,I ti 'ir',,h::gofAiT^r.1,:-\Y "1,"3:i!;rp

¶16

(oA.No.351/2022)

¶17

only) i.e., (Rs.27 ,27,357 /- in term loan + Rs.4,2 L,5I7/- GECL limit) with interest @ 11.650lo p.a with monthly rests from 19.10.2022 t'll the date of rea lization.

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the mother of defendant namely smt Madishetty Alivelumanga availed MSE loan of Rs,26.00 lakhs for purchase of a bus vide letter of arrangement dated 21.12.2019. The mother of defendant executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation on ZL.IZ.2O|,. The mother of defendant purchased EICHER Vehicle Fert (Bus chassis) on 04.01,2020 from Talwar Auto Garages pvt Ltd. The said vehicle is registered on 74.02.02020 with RTA Warangal. A further sum of Rs.5,22,000/_ was sanctioned on 03.06.2020 to Smt Madishetty Alivelumanga. Subsequently Smt Madishetty Alivelumanga died on 0g,01.2021 as per death certificate dated o2.o2.zo2t. After death of Smt Madishetty Alivelumanga, the defendant became the legal heir and undertook the letter of liability for the aforesaid loan accounts. After availing the loan facilities, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 18.03.2022 and issued notice-..-gdJ!..03.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, ,n{-a;ir'of^.}i}f ctear the outstanding. i"e Hence this oA. {, 'S. i 3 0[I 208

¶19

(oA.No.3s1l2022)

¶20

Defendant was called absent and set exparte on 14.09.2023.

¶21

Shri P, Vijay, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A,25.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶23

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

¶24

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant as prayed

¶25

for?

¶26

7' Defendant cared absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A,25, 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 Appricant Bank is entitred to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶27

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

¶28

iJ\ t.^.. /# €J' I^{,, ocTzm} ; .-) - ) ***#

¶29

(OA. No.3s112022)

¶30

The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.31,48,874l- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Forty Eight thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Four only) i.e., (Rs.27,27,357/- in term loan + Rs.4,21,517l- GECL limit) with interest @ 11.650lo p,a from 19.10.2022 till the date of realization ;

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶36

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of Oct, 2023)

¶37

sd/_

¶38

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

i Fii.!E GOPY .*,m):l

State Bank of India v. Sri Madishetty Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Madishetty Suresh

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

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S. Kunta Raja Govindu and Sons

State Bank of India versus M/S. Surex Auto Works

Smt Kethavath Maji versus Bank of Baroda

City Union Bank Ltd, versus M/S. Sri Venkateswara Motors

Mr Thota Murali Krishna versus National Trust Housing Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sr. Kolluru Prem Kumar