Allowed

The South Indian Bank Limited v. Smt Chilakapudi Shanta Kumari

DRT4 Jan 2024OA/105/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant bank filed an original application for recovery of a housing loan amount of Rs.35,36,650.42 along with interest and costs against the borrowers and guarantor. After examining the bank manager as a witness and reviewing documentary evidence, the Debts Recovery Tribunal held that the bank established its claim and granted the relief.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.35,36,650.42 with 10.05% interest; applicant entitled to proceed against mortgaged and personal properties; recovery certificate issued.

The South Indian Bank Limited versus Smt… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs rHE 4r'H DAy oF JANUARY, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.1O5 ot 2O22

¶4

Between:

¶5

The South Indian Bank Limited, Abids Branch, D.No.4-1-898, Lala II Oasis plaza,^. Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad - 01. Represented by its Branch Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SmtCh ila ka pudisha nta Ku mari, w/o Sri Ch. V. Prasad Rao, major, H.No.6-3- 12 1 9 / L/2/ A-3, Niharlka Splendour, street no.1, Uma Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016.

¶9

Sri Ch. V. Prasad Rao, s/o V. Subba Rao, major, H. No.6-3-1219/ L/2/ A-3, Niharika Splendour, street no.1, Uma Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. Defendants

¶10

Counsel for the Parties:

¶11

For the Applicant Sri AmbadipudiSatyanarayana For the Defendant 1 Expa rte Defendant no.2 Sri V. SethuMadhava Rao :^o{rrN2o24: ,i, 1,,\I Q*=r#

¶12

(OA.No.10s of 2022)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.35,36,650.42ps (Rupees Thirty five Lakhs Thirty Six thousand Six hundred Fifty and paise forty two only) with Interest @ 10.050/o p.a along with 2o/o p.a penar interest from date of firing of oA tiil the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶15

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 is borrower and defendant no,2 her husband stood as guarantor to the housing roan of Rs.31 rakhs, The defendants executed sanction intimation letter, housing loan agreement and guarantee agreement by defendant no.2 on 14.12.20L5. The defendant no.1 created equitable mortgage of schedure mentioned property and deposited the tiue deeds as security to the housing roan on 20.07.2016. After avairing the roan facirities, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NPA on 14.7.2019 and issued demand notice dated 16.0g.2019. defendants did not ':..1\ _jl' ,^{0 4.r4g} : 2

¶16

(OA.No.10s of 2022)

¶17

Defendant no.l called absent and set exparte on 20.12.2022. counser for defendant no.2 fired vakarath but not fired written statement.

¶18

Shri Ramesh Chakravarthi, Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW,1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.11.

¶19

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

prayed for?

¶23

7' Defendant no.1 cared absent and set exparte. Though Defendant No.2 counsel filed vakalath did not file written statement, To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.Al to A.11. 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 Appricant Bank is entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with and costs.

¶24

B. In the result, tne pjesent On costs, as under: ,t 4

¶25

(OA.No.105 of 2022)

¶26

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.35,36,65o.42ps (Rupees Thifi five Lakhs Thirty Six thousand Six hundred Fifty and paise forty two only) with interest @ 10.05o/o p.afrom date of filing of OAtill realization.

¶27

The Applicant bank is entiued to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in the schedule to oA towards realization of the debt due.

¶28

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

¶29

L2. The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA. 13. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶30

L4. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶32

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on thts the 4th day of Jan,2O24)

¶33

sdl-
(G. coPtcHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶34

The South Indian Bank Limited v. Smt Chilakapudi Shanta Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The South Indian Bank Limited v. Smt Chilakapudi Shanta Kumari

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 Annepalli Linga Reddy

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Sri Deepthi Prints

Indian Bank versus M/S Aarthi Enterprises

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S. Konark Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus Mr.Bollimpalli Pardhasaradhi

Canara Bank versus Mr. M. Vivek