Allowed

State Bank of India v. Shri. Shakuntala Narender

DRT20 Nov 2024OA/77/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DT permitted the Debt Recovery Tribunal application filed by State Bank of India against two defendants for recovery of a housing loan amount. Finding the bank established its claim, the Tribunal held the survivor liable for the full debt and the estate of the deceased debtor proportionately.

What did the court decide?

Defendant No. 1 to pay Rs. 28,88,152/- with interest; Applicant Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and the estate of the deceased defendant; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Shri. Shakuntala Narender — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 2OTH DAY OF NOVEMBER' 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER OA.No.77 ol ZO24

¶3

Between:

¶4

State Bank of India,

¶5

Stressed Assets Recovery branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

ShriShakuntlaNarender, s/o Venkulu, H.No.7-11, Doctors colony, Nakreka l, Nalgonda dist - 508 211.

¶9

Mrs. Shakuntla Annapurna, (died) D/o Venkulu, H.No.7-11, Doctors colony, N a kreka l, Nalgonda dist - 508 211. r4\ And at H.,No.13-16, Patel nagar :^zoro'rzut I Beside court, Nakrekal, Nalgonda dist - 508 211. W,nda nts Counsel for the Parties:Parties:

¶10

Counsel for the Parties:Parties: For the Applicant

Sri C. Sreedhar

For the Defendants

Expa rte

lOA.No.77l2024)

ORDER

The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2g,gg,152l_ (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Eighty Eight thousand One hundred and Fifty two only) (Rs.28,56,539/- + Rs.31,613/_) with further interest @ 11.05% p.awith monthry rests from date of firing of oA ti[ the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶17

2, As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 and 2 availed housing loan of Rs.32.00 lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 24.08.20L7. The defendants executed memorandum of loan agreement and mortgaged the schedure mentioned property. The defendant no.1 purchased the oA schedule property vide gift settlement deed no.171l/20t2 dated 19.05'2017, confirmation retter dated 15.04.2019 and demand notice dated 18.12.2019. SubsequenUy defendant no.2 expired and defendant no.1 is the only legal heir of deceased defendant no.2. After availing the loan facility, the to comply the terms of sanction, hence the strained to ctassify the account as NpA o^ {l&iz.zozsBno i al notice vsrvv v\Ji\r2. <.vz.rr. got,0"vr#:". r r5 rLe or,tFqyerat requests and lF.rnands, the dated 06.02 . 2024. r ns p ite "rii;"."? defendants did not ctear rhe "r,rft $r, !:.1gemtfdl,;, ot*,lliry"'

¶18

loA.No.77 /2024)

¶19

Defendant No.1 was called absent and set exparte on 08.07.2024.

¶20

Defendant no.2 expired and defendant no.1 is the legal heir of deceased defendant no.2.

¶21

Sri P. Sandeep, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself AS AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked AS Ex.A.1 to A.12.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

Defendant no.1 remained exparte and no craim against defendant no.2. 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. 12. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entiUed to recover the claim made in the OA w and costs. .-"s €-? u

¶26

B. In the result, the present OA ,^{as under:}

¶27

f f 'flil{f!u[''n

¶28

The Defendant No.1 is liable to pay to nt Bank a total sum of Rs.28,88,152/- ( Lakhs Eighty Eighty Eight

¶29

Lakhs Eighty Eighty Eight

¶30

loA.No.77 /2024],

¶31

thousand One hundred and Fifty two only) (Rs.2g,56,539/- + Rs.31,613/-) with further interest @ 11.05o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶32

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

¶33

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.1 only to the extent of estate devolved upon defendant no.1 from the deceased defendant no.2 towards realization of the debt due.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶37

L4. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶38

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, correited, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this tne_?gl=F+C!{9v, 2oZ4)

¶39

ffi sdl-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
*
PRESIDING OFFICER
20 l|l0l,m{
TBUE coPY
/J /( tl N /) ^" L_,t / at-L-
,l-o I r, /'V
Asst. Reglsirar 1 ,' , 1
DRT.I. HYDERABAIT.- I ( I./
A{ffiry

State Bank of India v. Shri. Shakuntala Narender

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Shri. Shakuntala Narender

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

Ananda Ratna Rajakumar Bunga versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Ashok Kumar B versus Gic Housing Finance Limited

Mr D Surender Babu versus Repco Home Finance Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Sri. Dareddy Venu Gopal Reddy

M/S. Instruments Techniques Pvt. Lts., versus M/S. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr Archakam Balakrishna