Allowed

Rbl Bank Ltd. v. Mrs. Padma Mudigonda

DRT29 Aug 2024OA/21/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad disposed of Original Application No. 21 of 2023 wherein the applicant bank sought recovery of a loan of Rs. 20,80,844 along with interest. The court allowed the claim, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 20,80,844 with interest; bank entitled to recover from mortgaged property and defendants' assets; recovery certificate issued.

Rbl Bank Ltd. versus Mrs. Padma Mudigonda — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

JIN^{THE DEBTSRECOVERY} TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 2grHDAy OF AUGUST, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.21 ot 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

M/s. RBL Bank Ltd, D.No.6-3-865, 4th floor, My Home Jupally, green Park hotel, Greenlands, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, TS- 500 016.

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mrs. Padma Mudigonda, W/o Mudigonda Srinivas,

¶10

Aged about 57 years, occ: business, R/o 3-61, Nandikandi,

¶11

Sangareddy, TS - 502 306.

¶12

Mr. Mudigonda Srinivas, s/o Sri Anjaiah, aged about

¶13

62 years, occ: business,

¶14

R/o 3-61, Nandikandi,

¶15

Sangareddy, TS - Defendants
Counsel for the Partid($
..?
vek Jain
2 s AU0 2.ur
For the Defendants ']r haikKhaja Peer

¶16

1, The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for

¶17

recovery of a total sum of Rs.2O,8O,844l- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs

¶18

(OA.No.21 of 2023)

¶19

Eighty Thousand Eight hundred and Forty four only) with future interest @ 1Bo/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants availed mortgage loan of Rs.17,65,212/under loan account no.809001681863 on 05.07.2018 and a sum of Rs.3,15,632l- under loan account no.809002794944 on 04.Lt.2020. The defendants agreed to repay the loan amount by monthly EMIs for both the accounts from 05.07.2022. The defendants availed the mortgage loan against the security of schedule mentioned property.

¶21

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NPA. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the applicant bank issued notices but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants isof Rs.2O,8O,844/(Rupees Twenty Lakhs Eighty Thousand Eight hundred and

¶22

Forty four only) with future @ 18o/o^p.a from date of application till realization.

¶23

¶24

The Defendants riteo wiirten &"1"[U8.flEtl0 oli the averments ,.'',:i, made in OA. It was a9 led mortgage loan.

¶25

(OA.No.21 of 2023)

¶26

The defendants agreed about the execution of the documents and creation of any mortgage with the Applicant Bank. It is further contended that the applicant bank charged heavy interest and not followed the RBI guidelines. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA. Defendant no.1 examined herself as DW.1 and not filed any documents.

¶27

I have^perused the documents^{placed on record.}

¶28

Now, the points that arise for consideration^are:

¶29

i) Whether the Applicant Bank^{has proved its claim as made in} OA against the defendants^?

¶30

ii) To what relief ?

¶31

Point No.i):

¶32

who was examined

¶33

1. Ms. Divya Violet Ramesh,^{Senior Manager/ AW.1} on behalf of the^{Applicant have clearlydeposed} the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to^{A.3 exhibitedby} the Applicant bank clearly establish the^{liability of the}

¶34

(*"-ffi "'3h 6. AW.l was not cross exa .Eo ov t# o"r"n'l Even though defendant No.1 exa m in ed L'qdii,!0rflm. nce is in noway g. ^^.r; helpful to her. The rtNg,1 having plea that the .Qts+: t i1^31'. applicant bank did not follow nd that the^present

¶35

(OA.No.21 of 2023)

¶36

OA was barred by limitation, failed to place any substantial proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents executed by the bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendants in the normal course of transaction. The defendant No.1 very vaguely contended that particulars made in the OA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants are liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendant No.1 is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶37

Point No.ii)

¶38

In the result, the^present Original application is allowed^with costs^as under:

¶39

The Defendants are^jointly and severally^liable to^{pay to Applicant} Bank a total sum of Rs.2O,8O,8441-^(Rupees Twenty^Lakhs Eighty Thousand Eight hundred and Forty four only)^{with future} interest @ 18o/o^p.a date of application till the date^of realization;

¶40

¶41

(oA.No.21 of 2023)

¶42

The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged

¶43

property as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the

¶44

debt due.

¶45

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person

¶46

and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶47

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

¶48

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶49

of receipt of order.

¶50

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶51

Communicate a copy of the order to the pa rties concerned.

¶52

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2gthday of Aug,2024)

¶53

sd/-

¶54

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶55

a,lvffi, "#f',,n#i:l{'"

Rbl Bank Ltd. v. Mrs. Padma Mudigonda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rbl Bank Ltd. v. Mrs. Padma Mudigonda

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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sherton Bakers and Sweets (Borrower)

Rayaneni Kumaraswamy versus City Union Bank Limited

Adepu Venkateshwarlu versus City Union Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Ramakrishna Electronics and Home Appliances

State Bank of India versus Sri Pagadala Surender

Punjab National Bank versus Sri. K. Ramakrishnareddy