Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri. Gudala Girish

DRT6 May 2024OA/373/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by State Bank of India to recover a debt of Rs.22.83 lakhs along with interest from the borrower, holding the evidence unchallenged as the respondent failed to adduce counter-evidence.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.22,83,615/- including interest; entitlement to proceed against mortgaged property and person/property of defendant for realization.

State Bank of India versus Sri. Gudala Girish — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrs rHE 6r' DAy oF MAy,2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.373 ot 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery branch-I, 2nd floor, APSRTC, CAC, Koti, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Sri Gudala Girish, s/o G. Durga Prasad Rao, aged 35 years/occ: business, male, D.No.24-3/3/F301,

¶10

Sri Sai Jagannadha Apartments, Vima ladevinaga r, malkajgiri, Hyderabad - 500 047.

¶11

And also at

¶12

H.No. 12-7- 157 /3/ A, lst floor, Mettug uda, near AyyappaSwamy Temple, Secunderabad.

¶13

And also at

¶14

FI;atrno.20 l, 2nd floor , ri*fi H..N o .24-7r43/5/LA, pl(otr: nos. 9 8 & 99, Sri Vyen 'jt' ffi Saai A pa rt ments, r Shivatpu '..:3 Meal k iajg ir ii m unicipality/& MEancrdal, M edchal- Mal kaj( 05 Dirist: r ict - 500 047. Defendant

¶15

(OA.No.373 of 2022)

¶16

Counsel for the Parties:

For the Applicant

Smt B, Ramana Kumari

For the Defendant

Sri D. Raghavulu

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.22,83,615/- (Rupees Twenty two Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Six hundred and Fifteen only) i.e.,

¶23

a) a sum of Rs.21,33,027/- in respect of housing loan account with current and future interest @ 10.30% p.a with monthly rests from 2t.tL.2022 till the date of realization ;

¶24

b) a sum of Rs.60,401/- in respect of home loan insurance account with current and future interest @ 10.30% with monthly rests from 27.11.2022 till the date of realization ;

¶25

c) a sum of Rs.90,187/- in respect of home top up loan account with current and future interest @ 10.30o/o with monthly rests from 21.17.2022 ltl the date of reallzation

¶26

and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶27

As Applicant Bank

¶28

states that gllPan Rs.20.00 lakhs,

¶29

(oA.No.373 of 2022)

¶30

funding of home loan insurance of Rs.59,660/- for purchase of flat bearing no.201 in second floor of "Sri Venkata Sai Apartments" more fully described in the schedule to OA. The defendant executed memorandum of loan agreement for housing loan on 09.11.2018. As a security for repayment of the loan, the defendant deposited the original Regd Sale deed doc. No.B742/2018 dated 12.11.2018 and created equitable mortgage over the application schedule property. Subsequently the defendant availed home loan top up loan of Rs.89,594/- on 16.05.2020.

¶31

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 defendanthas not regularized the account, and the applicant bank issued demand notice dated 05.03.2022 but the defendant did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendant isof Rs.22,83,6L5/- (Rupees Twenty two Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Six hundred and Fifteen only) with interest @ 10.30o/o p.a with monthly rests from 2L.11.2022til1 realization. Hence the oA.

¶32

The Defendant filed written denied the averments made in OA. The defendants tni&tqution or documents :* with the Applicant the creation of 3

¶33

(OA.No.373 of 2022)

¶34

mortgage over application schedule^property by deposit of^title deeds. The defendant further denied the^{irregularities in the conduct} of loan accounts and repaying of installments.^{Henceprayedfor} dismissal of OA.

¶35

3, The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed^{evidence affidavit} duly sworn in by Smt K. Geethalakshmi,^{Manager as AW.1 and} through her marked 12 documents as^{Ex.A.1 to A.12. As against} this, the defendant did not choose to adduce^{any evidenceon her} behalf in support of their contentions and^{also did not choose to cross} examlne the AW.1 to controvert his Chief^{Evidence.Inspiteof} repeated adjournments, the defendant failed to^{file evidence} Affidavit, hence the right of filing Defendant^{Evidence Affidavitwas} closed on 14.O3.2024.

¶36

I have perused the documents^placed on^record.

¶37

Now, the^points that arise^{for consideration are:}

¶38

i) Whether the Applicant^{Bank has proved its claimas madein} OA against the defendant^?

¶39

ii) To what relief ?

¶40

nk and also as^per Written statement,

¶41

(OA.No.373 of 2022)

¶42

it is very clear that the defendant has availed loan from the Applicant Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defendant are clearly mentioned in the statement of account filed by Applicant Bank. The defendant has not placed any material documents to show his bonafides for establishing that he paid substantial amounts to the Applicant.

¶43

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendant. The defendant has not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their liability is less than the amount mentioned in the OA and no supporting documents filed for establishing that he has not created the mortgage. Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A.1 to A.12 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendant is liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶44

Point No.ii)

¶45

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

¶46

B. The Defendantis Iiable to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.22,83,615/- (Rupees Twenty two Lakhs Eighty Three

¶47

Thousand Six hundred a

¶48

(OA.No.373 of 2022)

¶49

a) a sum of Rs.21,33,027/- in respect of housing loan account with current and future interest @ 10.30olo p.a from 21.Lt.2022 till the date of realization ;

¶50

b) a sum of Rs.60,401/- in respect of home loan insurance account with current and future interest @ 10.30olo from 21.It.2022 till the date of realization ;

¶51

c) a sum of Rs.90,187/- in respect of home top up loan account with current and future interest @ 10.30o/o from 2LI1.2022 till the date of realization.

¶52

The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in scheduleto OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶53

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶54

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

¶55

file a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶56

( Dictated to by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on 2024\

¶57

sd/N,NUF^C?EY) (G. GOPTCHAND) ""i.w PRESIDING OFFICER 5

State Bank of India v. Sri. Gudala Girish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri. Gudala Girish

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

Mr Tenali Ajay Babu versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Sri Mora Venkata Appa Reddy

State Bank of India versus Sri Sonaganti Pavan Kumar

Sri Haridas Ramesh and Others versus State Bank of India

Sri Mohmmed Hamed Ali versus State Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Laxmipriya Cotex