Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Kothapalli Sai Karthik

DRT27 Sept 2024OA/58/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order confirms the liability of defendants to repay an outstanding home loan amount of Rs. 86,09,348 along with future interest. The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's recovery proceedings, declaring the defendants jointly and severally liable and authorizing enforcement actions against mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Directing defendants to pay Rs. 86,09,348 plus future interest; authorizing the bank to proceed against mortgaged property and defendants' assets for recovery of the debt.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Kothapalli Sai Karthik — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER'2f/24

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No,5B ot 2024

¶3

Between:

¶4

State bank of India, SARB -1, 2"d floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Koti, Hyderabad. TS. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Mr. Kothapalli Sai Karthik, s/o Sri Kothapalli Srinivas, occ: employee, aged 40 years, R/o Flat no.413, 4th floor, VasaviBh uvanaAparment, Sri Nagar colony, yellareddyguda, Hyderabad - 500 073.

¶8

Mrs. RebalaDivija, w/o Mr. Kothapalli Sai Karthik, occ: employee, aged 46 years, R/o Flat no,4l3,4th floor, Va sa viBh u va naApa rm ent, Sri Nagar colony, yellareddyguda, Hyderabad - 500 073.

¶9

Defendants Counsel for the^parties: ,/l ,t-' For the Applicant l"! Dayakar Rao For the Defendants ?^{7 sEF Zm E,.R?} -i b-l :;:i .. -o:l!, ;'*SV

¶10

(OA.No.ss/2024)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.g6,O9,34gl_ (Rupees Eighty Six Lakhs Nine Thousand Three hundred and Forty Eight only) i.e., a) A sum of Rs.54,43,665/_ with future interest @ g.600lo p.a arong with 20/o p'a penar interest from date of apprication ti, the date of realization;

¶13

b) A sum of Rs.31,65,583/- with future interest @ 9.35% p.a along with 20/o p.a penar interest from date of apprication ti, the date of realization;

¶14

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

¶15

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendants avaired sBI-Max Gain Home Loan for a sum of Rs.51,98,000/- and home loan insurance cover for a sum of Rs.4,78,000/- and executed agreement for home loan dated 31.01.2018. The defendant no.1 mortgaged the schedule mentioned immovable prope deposited the Regd efendants availed sare deed no.463f,/20t, $gr?i7ffi ,QY oro. SB-Home top up toan {t' gs ngement letter '1?&P'noY'."^! dated 15.02.2018. After the loan rcIlty; the defendants raited to compty the terms )ii:i* S;.',,:applicant bank was

¶16

(oA.No.s8/2024)

¶17

constrained to crassify the account as NpA and issued regar notice dated 20.01.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA,

¶18

Defendants No.1 and 2 called absent and set exparte on t2.04.2024. 4. Sri P. sandeep, Manager of the Appricant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.15.

¶19

5, Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶20

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶21

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as

¶22

prayed for?

¶23

Defendants cailed absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.15. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entiued made in the OA with

¶24

future interest unO .ortr,,..f,r..,j\ ii,t 2 7^sEPztlil

¶25

In the result, the prese ,^{asu nder:}

¶26

(oA.No.s8l2024)

¶27

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.86,O9 ,34g/_ (Rupees Eighty Six Lakhs Nine Thousand Three hundred and Forty Eight only) i.e.,

¶28

a) A sum of Rs.54,43,665/- with future interest @ 8.600lo p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶29

b) A sum of Rs.31,65,5g3/- with future interest @ 9.35olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶30

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged

¶31

property as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the

¶32

debt due.

¶33

The Appricant Bank is arso entired to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶34

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

¶35

t2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶36

Issue Recovery certifiCate accordingly. t4, l.opy^{of the order to the parties concerned.}

¶37

olo!;t' tott"tt"o, signed and pronounced by me in the open

¶38

*
? ? stP e[ilt

¶39

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Mr. Kothapalli Sai Karthik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Kothapalli Sai Karthik

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

Union Bank of India versus Sri. Jawaharlal Gogoluthu

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Nitin Infra Projects

Manoj Kumar N versus Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

Canara Bank versus Smt . Bandameedhi Jyothi

State Bank of India versus M/S. Decca Surgicals Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Apex Aac Industries Represented by Its Proprietor Smt M Madhavi