Allowed

State Bank of India v. Late Mrs.D Vijaya

DRT24 May 2024OA/284/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs.22.48 lakh from four respondents, declaring them jointly and severally liable for principal dues and future interest on defaulting loans.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability to pay total sum of Rs.22,48,106/- with future interest and costs.

State Bank of India versus Late Mrs.D Vijaya — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.284 oJ 2O23

¶5

Between :

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Bus Terminal Complex (commuter Amenity Centre) Koti, Hyderabad, TS. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Late Mrs. D. Vijaya, Represented by her legal heirs Defendant no.1 Smt V. Devika, W/o Uday Kumar, aged 36 years, First main road, NMDA Mathur Munali, Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu- 600 068.

¶10

And also at

¶11

R/ o 631247 / 426, Rajmauta, Hyderabad, TS - 500 082.

¶12

Smt A. Parmila, W/o Achutnandan, aged 36 years, First Main road, NMDA Mathur Munali, Tiruvallur, TN - 600 O68.

¶13

Smt R. Revathi,

¶14

w/o Rajesh, aged 33 years, First main road, NMDA Mathur Munali, Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu-

¶15

And also at

¶16

R/ o 631247 / 426, Rajmauta,

¶17

2 4 fiA't 2024
,
Wt**'t

¶18

(OA. No.284/2023)

¶19

Hyderabad, TS - 500 OB2.

¶20

Smt P. RatnaKumari, D/o Emaniellllangi, aged major, H.No.6-2-90412, ThumalBasthi, Hyderabad.

¶21

Defendants

¶22

Counsel for the^parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

Sri C. Sreedhar

Expa rte

ORDER

1' The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.22,49,1O6l_ (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Forty Eight thousand One hundred and Six only) i.e.,

¶29

a) Defendants 1 to 3 are liable for a sum of Rs.t7,34,433/_ under loan account No.39883453184 with furtherinterest @14.10% p.a with monthry rests from date of firing of oA tiil the date of realization;

¶30

b) Defendants 1 to 4 are liable for a sum of Rs.5,13,673/-under account no.4034t6I4925 with further interest @ 77.75o/o p.a

¶31

with monthly rests from d till the date of

¶32

realization; 2 { flAY 2024

¶33

1. As per the averments in th tion, the t Bank states that defendant late D. Vijaya rsl defendants

¶34

(oA. No.28412023)

¶35

1to 4 availed Xpress credit loan of Rs.20.OO lakhs dated 2L.12.2020 and pension loan of Rs.4,4O,0OO/- dated 05.08.2021 and executed personal loan agreement for term loan and arrangement letter dated 05.08.2021. Defendant no.4 stood as guarantor to the loan availe3d by defendant no.1. The defendants agreed to repay the aforesaid personal loan limit in 72 EMIs @ Rs.50,353/- with interest @ 12.10o/o p.a and @ 14.10olo p.a respectively. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA and issued legal notice dated 04.10.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶36

Defendants No.1 to 4 called absent and set exparte on 02.04.2024.

¶37

Shri K. GovindRaju, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.l and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.14.

¶38

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶39

The point that arise for consi whether the Applicant Bank IS entitled for the claim inst the Defendants AS prayed for? )0i'.1

¶40

(OA. No.28412023)

¶41

Defendants 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.A1 to A.14. 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 Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs,

¶42

B. in the result, the^present OA is allowed^{with costs, as under:}

¶43

The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to^the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.22,48,1061-^{(Rupees Twenty} Two Lakhs Forty Eight thousand One hundred and Six only) i.€.,

¶44

a) Defendants l to 3 are liable for a sum of Rs.17,34,433/-^under loan account No.39883453184 with further^interest @14.10o/o^{p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of} realization;

¶45

b) Defendants 1to 4 are liable for a^sum of^{Rs.5,13,673l-under} loan account no.403416L4925 with further^interest @^11.75olo p.a From date o. he date of realization

¶46

c) The Applicant also against the person and properties lzation of the debt due.

¶47

(oA.N0.284/2023)

¶48

However, the applicant is entitled to proceed only to the extent of

¶49

estate devolved upon them from deceased Mrs. D. Vijaya.

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶53

S)^{Communicatea copy of the order to the parties concerned.}

¶54

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of May' 2024)

¶55

sd/_ (G. GOPTCHAND)

¶56

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶57

.'44t
aq,"::ffi
@
24;;

¶58

AssflaegYstar DRI.I. ir"/0€RJ1440.

State Bank of India v. Late Mrs.D Vijaya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Late Mrs.D Vijaya

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

Uco Bank versus Smt. Rama Laxmi Patra

Union Bank of India , (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) versus M/S. Venugopal Cotton Industries

Indian Bank versus Ms Indeevar Industries

Union Bank of India versus Mrs.Kukalakntakavitha

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Sai Datta Food Industries

Dilip Bhosale versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited