Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Shonti Sai Baba Goud

DRT19 Feb 2024OA/383/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's Original Application for recovery instituted in expansion of a debt of Rs.28.72 lakh against the defendant who remained absent. The tribunal held the defendant liable to pay the dues, future interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendant is liable to pay Rs.28,72,937 with future interest; bank entitled to proceed against properties and costs.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Shonti Sai Baba Goud — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No, 383 OF 2022 LLv*ilvl\yx S+e- - \q. US. rv a\ )

¶4

State Bank of India RACPC, Banjara Hills, 6-3-257/7 /L22, Jyothi Prlme, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. Rep by its Chief Manager

¶5

...........Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ivlr. Shonti Sai Baba Goud S/o. Sri. Yuga ndhar Goud, Aged about 37^years, Occ: Buslness, C/o.Sri.G.Shyam Sunder, L I G-8-495, Dr.A.S.Rao Nagar, ECIL, H ydera ba d - 50 0 0 62 defen d a nt.

¶8

Counsel for the Applicant : lvlr. Y. Venkatramana Defendant : Exparte.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

The Applicant Bank flled the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.28,72,937/- frc"|,]' the defendant with interest @7.55o/o^p.a. and also^penal interest at 2olo from the date of Application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶11

Summons served on Defendant. He was set ex-parte on 02.09.2022, as called absent and no representation Ar/^ L,/ 'e,.Y'\

¶12

oa.38312O22

¶13

¶14

The Applicant Bank examined K. Bala Subramanyam, Manager as AW-1 and marked 9 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.9.

¶15

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Perused the material placed on record.

¶16

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶17

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant?

¶18

As stated supra, defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recltals ln the documents viz., Exs. A1 to A.9 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the clalm of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Appllcant Bank wlth future interest and costs.

¶19

In the result, the present Original Application No.383/2022 is allowed as under: -

¶20

i) the defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.28,72,93L/- with future interest @7.55o/o p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶21

ii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for realization of its dues; and

¶22

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs. 7 ,/Vy__,t_\ -

¶23

¶24

oA.383/2022

¶25

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶26

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶27

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (urctated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the lgth daYorFebruary'2024)'

¶28

dY*"t* (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Mr. Shonti Sai Baba Goud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Shonti Sai Baba Goud

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

Punjab National Bank versus Karan Kumar

Bank of India versus Mr. Shrikant

Hdfc Bank versus Vikram Interprises

Icici Bank Limited versus Sri. Rahul Gowda

Canara Bank versus Sri. Davalasab H. Desai

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S Sreeven Dhara Infra