Allowed

State Bank of India v. Srinivas Reddy

DRT8 Jun 2023OA/360/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal heard an Origin Application by State Bank of India against two defendants for recovery of an housing loan and SBI Suraksha facility balance. After the defendants appeared ex-parte and the Bank produced documentary evidence, the Tribunal held the Bank established its claim.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.51,73,944/- with interest; Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and defendants' assets.

State Bank of India versus Srinivas Reddy — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrs rHE 8t, DAy oF JUNE, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

OA.No.36O OF 2022

Between :

State Bank of India,

Stressed Assets Recovery Bra n ch, 2nd floor, TSRTC bus Terminal Complex, (Commuter Amenity Centre), Koti, Hyderabad.

¶8

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶9

Applicant

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

Sri Kancharla Srinivas Reddy, S/o K. Narayan Reddy, Male, major, R/o H.No.9-6919, Laxminagar colony, Boduppal, Medchal/ Malkajgiri district, Hyderabad - 500 039.

¶12

Also at

¶13

R/o Flat no.301, 3'd floor, Municipal No.1-5-6218/301, "Sri Krishna Residency" Vivekananda nagar, Habsiguda village, Uppal Mandal, Hyderabad - 500 007.

¶14

Smt A. Vasavi Gouramma, w/o K. Sreedhar Reddy, female, major, R/o plot no,67, Lakshmi nagar, Boduppal, Medchal/ Malkajgiir dist Hyderabad - 500 039.

¶15

ls usI I Jl]ll
\,th di
$,h*
s-,t,:*
Defendants

¶16

(oA. No.350/202 2 )

¶17

Counsel for the Pa rties:

¶18

For the Applicant

¶19

Shri P.V. Satyanarayana

For the Defenda nts

Exparte

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.51,73,944l- (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs Seventy Three thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Four only) i.e., a sum of Rs.49,01,579/- under housing loan limit and a sum of Rs,2,72,365/- under SBI Suraksha loan facility with interest @ l2.lOo/o p.a with monthly rests from the date of application till realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶24

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants availed housing loan limit of Rs.39.00 lakhs and funding of home insurance cover loan of Rs.2,26,000/- on 07.05.2015. Defendants 1& 2 executed security loan documents for securing repayment of outstanding liability. The defendants executed Memorandum of loan agreement for home loan dated 28.06.20L2. Defendant no.2 executed guarantee agreement dated 07.05.2015. Defendant no.1 deposited title deeds relatlng to OA schedule mentioned property bearing Regd. Sale deed no.5451/2015 dated 30.05.2015 with an intention to create equitable mortgage by deposit After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was

¶25

_:l ..L.. nsJUl'l2[n[l I^{tiutr 1uq'} ?i 1 i.:'i" r'.I x --VL.I '-rci#-Y

¶26

(oA.No.360/2022)

¶27

constrained to classify the account as NPA and issued legal notice dated 19.10.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding, Hence this OA.

¶28

Defendants were set exparte on 16.05.2023.

¶29

Shri Ch, Raghavender Rao, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.10.

¶30

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶31

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?

¶32

The defendants were 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.10. 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

¶33

-: . App{icant. Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with and costs.

¶34

is allowed with costs, as under:

¶35

.9i1.^{The Defenda,nts are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant}

¶36

'.-,i'.'}-.i" .,.i--,.-,' Barik a total Rs.51r73,944/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs Seventy '.:,-'i."'''... ..Thiee thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Four only) i.e., a sum

¶37

(oA.No.360/2022)

¶38

of Rs,49,OL,579/- under housing loan limit and a sum of Rs.2,72,365/- under SBI Suraksha loan facility with interest @ t2.lOo/o p.a from the date of application till the date of realization.

¶39

i) The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in Schedule to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶44

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶45

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of lune, 2023)

¶46

sd/_

¶47

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶48

TRUE COPY ,*.ffil', aR?:I,^{t yDSAAEAO-}

State Bank of India v. Srinivas Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Srinivas Reddy

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

City Union Bank Limited versus Sri Mekala Satyanarayana

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Fraternity Interactive Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Sri. Krishnadhi Raghu

State Bank of India versus Sri . Nallathigala Naresh