Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Madhusudhan Babu Ponnekanti

DRT16 Jul 2024OA/174/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a personal loan of Rs. 23,63,116/-. The court accepted the bank's evidence, ordered payment of the principal amount with future interest, and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Ordered payment of Rs. 23,63,116/- with future interest; permitted attachment of properties; issued recovery certificate.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Madhusudhan Babu… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY'2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.174 of 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, SARB-II, Chikkad pa lly, Hyderabad, Telangana State Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mr. Madhusudhan Babu Ponnekanti, s/o Mr. Prakasham, aged 51 years, occ: service, t-lL4/t, Main road, Edulapuram, opp : Edulapuram Church, Khammam - 507 163.

¶10

Defendant

¶11

Counsel for the Pa rties :

For the Applicant

For the Defendant

Sri A.M. Kiran Kumar

Expa rte

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.23,63,116/-(Rupees Twenty three

¶18

lakhs Sixty three thousand One hundred and Sixteen only )

¶19

with future interest @ 12.650lo p.a w from date of application till the date of realizatio/,/6 ii,i*

¶20

(OA.No.174 of 2024)

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant availed personal loan of Rs.25.00 lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 09.12.2022. The defendant agreed to repay the personal loan in 72 monthly installments from 05.L2.2022. 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 07.10.2023 and issued legal notice dated 21.03.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the

¶22

defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶23

DeFendant called absent and set exparte on 24.06.2024.

¶24

Shri leval Rama Rao, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.B.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant as prayed For?

¶27

Defendant called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, A the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhi as Ex.A1 to A.B. In ; =i A\t view of the above, I,"httd tba! the npplicinl[ank has established :"1.^'l 6 JUL \ffi^*ll l' I." :(' I . -,, 'li.tfu' f$l

¶28

(OA.No.174 of 2024)

¶29

their claim made in the OA against the Defendant and hence the Applicant Bank is entiued to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶30

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: 9, The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs'23,63,116/-(Rupees Twenty three rakhs sixty three thousand One hundred and Sixteen onty ) with future interest @ 72.650/o p.a from date of appricationtiil the date of rearization;

¶31

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person

¶32

and properties of defendant towards realizatlon of the debt due.

¶33

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

¶34

12' The Appricant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶35

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶37

cou (Dictatedrt o.a.! to -transcribed Q(of Ju ly, 2024)by her, correcred, signed and pronounced by me in the open

¶38

sd/(G. coPtCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER 3 DPH, HYD9P-Aerto,

State Bank of India v. Mr. Madhusudhan Babu Ponnekanti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Madhusudhan Babu Ponnekanti

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 Sangepu Siva Kumar

State Bank of India versus Sri Thirumalreddy Venkateshwara Reddy

State Bank of India versus Sri. Vijay Kumar Satyalaya

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Green Aggri Implements

Kalakuntla Somaiah versus Bank of India

M/S. Instruments Techniques Pvt. Lts., versus M/S. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.