Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Garlapati Nageshwar Rao

DRT14 Aug 2024TA/3/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of outstanding loan amounts totaling approximately Rs. 41.62 lakhs with interest against four defendants who failed to repay an agri-business/home loan secured by mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to jointly and severally pay Rs. 41,62,290/- with future interest; applicant bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged properties for realization; costs awarded to applicant.

State Bank of India versus Sri Garlapati Nageshwar… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS^{THE 14TH DAYOF AUGUST,2024}

¶3

PRESENT: SRI^{GUMMADI GOPICHAND,PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

TA.No.3 ol 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank^{of India,} Stressed^{Assets RecoveryBranch,} 2nd floor,^{TSRTC Commuter AmenitY} Centre,^{Bus TerminalcomPlex,} Koti, HYderabad -^{500 095'} Represented^{bY its chief Manager}

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Sri GarlaPatiNageswara^Rao, S/o Sri^{Venkateswarlu,} Aged 63 Years,^male, H.No.9-1-43,^{Kaman bazar'} Khammam^town,Khammam District -^{207 OlL'}

¶10

SmtGarlaPatiLakshmi, w/o Sri^{NageswaraRao,} aged 62 Years,^female, H.No.9-t-+3,^{Kaman Bazar'} Khammam^town, Khammam^dist -^{207 001'}

¶11

Sri GarlaPatiVenkata^Krishna Santhosh,^{S/o Sri Nageswara} Rao, aged³⁷ Years,^male' H.No.9-1-43,^{Kaman Bazar'} Khammam^town, Khammam^dist -^{207 001'}

¶12

SriGarlaPatiVenuVenkatesh' s/o Sri^{NageswaraRao'} aged 36 Years,^male, H.t',to.g-f^{-+g, Kaman Bazar'}

¶13

f-^w
EP- .. )
($oi,-,,,,,*":fr.9

¶14

(TA.No.3 of 2022)

¶15

Khammam^town, Khammam^dist -^{207 001'}

¶16

Defendants

¶17

Counsel^{for the Parties:}

For the^APPlicant

For the^Defendants

Sri C.^Prabhakar

Sri R.^{RajendraPrasad}

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The^{Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for} recovery^{of a total sum of Rs'4L'62'29O/-(RupeesFortyOne} Lakhs Sixty^{Two thousand Two hundredand Ninety only)}

¶24

i,€.,

¶25

a) A sum^{of Rs'40'44'037/- under Loan accountNo'62483042733} with further^{interest@ 11'650/o p'a with monthlyrests from date} of filing^{of OA till the date of realization;}

¶26

b) A sum^{of Rs'1,18'253/-under Loan account No'62483046465 with} further^{interest @ 11'650/o P'a with monthly rests from date of} filing^{of OA till the date of realization;} and in^{default for sale of mortgaged propertiesas described in} the schedule^{to OA'}

¶27

As^{per the avermentsin the application' the ApplicantBank} 4 availed-^{home loan of} states^{that the def} i\ proPerties^{vide letter of} Rs.41,41,000/-^for , ffi..; 1 to^{4 jointlY created} arrangement^{dated 20'09'1qlq'uc O#r"noul} 2.Qr I of sale^deed mortga9e $ry

¶28

(TA.No.3 of 2022)

¶29

no.10335/2016^{dated 06.10.2016 inrespect of OA schedule} property-I and sale deed^{no,1033612016 in respectof OA schedule} property-Il The defendants^{no. 1 to 4 extendedthe said mortgage} to cover the^{businessloans sanctioned to M/s. Sri Rama Krishna} Electronics and^{Home Appliances by way ofexecutionof} Memorandum^{of deposit of title deeds dated l6'03'20t7'The} defendants^{extendedthe mortgageon 30'06'2020to cover the loans} enhanced^{to said M/s. GNRproductsIndia and confirmed the same} by way of^{executionof letter of confirmationfor extensionof} mortgage^{dated 30.06'2020'}

¶30

It is submitted^{by the Applicantbank that the Defendants} have availed^{the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the} repayment^{schedule,as such the account was classified as NPAand} issued legal^{notice dated L2'Og'2022'Inspite of demands made by} Applicant^{the defendants have not regularized the account' and the} defendants^{did not comeforwardto repaythe same'The total claim} (Rupees of Applicant^{against defendantsis of Rs'41 '62'2901-} Forty^{One Lakhs Sixty Two thousand Two hundred and Ninety} only)^{with futureinterest@ 11'650/o p'awith monthlyrests from} date^{of application till the date of realization' Hence the OA'}

¶31

rhe rilE Defendants r...srs,,vv"-- '--^{No.l ,"i1-"ffi} Ifj^.;1. eg t t due and to^deniedcovid the19 averments^{made in} Pn^Irt ]t.:.!b' 14A hardshiPs^and the il o,"i .lJEB,ffi* " pandemic,^{all businessiall} 3

¶32

(TA.No.3 of 2022)

¶33

businessWasrunninglowandduringthattroublestheApplicantbank declared the^{accountas NPA. It is also contended that inspite of} sufferinglosses,thedefendantspaidtheloaninstallmentsregularly' It is further^{submitted that the mistake in giving the correspondence} addressofM/s.GNRproductslndiaastheriskaddressalsoisthatof the Applicant bank^{and that the Applicant took signatureson blank} documents^{and further contendedthat Applicant bank regularly} auditedthestockatgodownwherethefireaccidenttookplace. Hence^{praYedfor dismissalof OA'}

¶34

The^{Applicant Bank in supportof its claim' filed evidence affidavit} duly sworn^{in by Sri A'G' Satya Prasad' Manager as AW'1 and} through^{him marked13 documentsas Ex'A'1 to A'13' As against} this, the defendants^{did not choose to adduceany evidence on their} behalf^{in support of their contentions and also did not chooseto cross} examine^{the AW'l to controvert his Chief Evidence'Inspiteof} repeated^{adjournments' the defendantsfailed to file evidence} Affidavit,^{hence the right of filing DefendantEvidenceAffidavitwas} closed^{on 25'01'2024'}

¶35

I have^{perused the documents} .o\ for co

¶36

Now,^the Points^that

¶37

(TA.No.3 of 2022)

¶38

i) Whether the Applicant^{Bank has proved its claimas madein}

¶39

OA against the defendants^?

¶40

ii) To what relief ?

¶41

Point No.i):

¶42

As^per the^{documents filed by the ApplicantBank and also as per the} admissions^{made by the defendantsin the written statement, it is} very clear that^{the defendants have availed loan from the Applicant} Bank, but failed^{to repaythe amount' All the amounts paid by the} defendantsareclearlymentionedinthestatementofaccountfiledby Applicant Bank.^{The defendants have not placed any material} documentstoshowtheirbonafidesforestablishingthattheypaid substantial amounts^{to the Applicant'}

¶43

AW.1 is not^{cross examined by the counselfor defendants'} Thedefendantshavenotcomeforwardtogiveevidenceto substantiate^{that their liability is less than the amount mentionedin} the OA and^{no supporting documentsfiled for establishingthat they} have not^{created the mortgage' Under such circumstances' the} evidence of AW,1^{coupled with recitals Ex'A'1 to A'13 stood} unchallenged^{and unrebutteq:-fl"Applicant bank clearlyestablished} OA amount^{to the Applicant} that the defendant^i9:

¶44

bank.

¶45

Point No.ii) 1 1 Aue IVl

¶46

,g".d9

¶47

(TA.No.3 of 2022)

¶48

In the result, the^{presentoriginal application is allowed with costs} as u nder:

¶49

The Defendants are^{jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant} Bank a total^{sum of Rs.41,62,29Ol-(RupeesForty One Lakhs} Sixty Two thousand^{Two hundred and Ninety only) i'e"}

¶50

a) A sum of^{Rs.40,44,0371-under Loan account No'62483042733} with further^{interest @ 11'650/o p'a from date of filing of OA till} the date of^realization;

¶51

b) A sum of^{Rs.1,18,253/- underLoan account No'62483046465} with further^{interest @ 11'650/o p'a from date of filing of OA till} the date of^realization;

¶52

B. The applicant bank is entitled^{to proceedagainst the mortgaged} described in^{schedule to OA towardsrealization of}

¶53

properties as the debt due.

¶54

The Applicant^{Bank is also entitled to proceedagainst the person} and^{properties of defendantstowards realization of the debt due'}

¶55

The^{Applicant Bank is entitledto the costs of the OA'}

¶56

within two^{weeksfrom the date}

¶57

1. The^{APPlicantshall file a} of receipt^{of order.}

¶58

t2. Issue^{Recove.vc6ttiricatl} ttffid'1fl{'

¶59

A,.!
r ilv" ,r -','nI

¶60

(TA.No.3 of 2022)

¶61

Communicate a copy^{of the order to the parties concerned.}

¶62

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected,^{signedand pronounced by me in the open} court on this the 14th day of^Aug'2024)

sdl_

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

,6d*<br>i,i; g q\
; -.1.
,. 1.. litt,g2m _
. ,, L.}
.' ''-o ',, .i: ;l#tP'o,:-j,

State Bank of India v. Sri Garlapati Nageshwar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Garlapati Nageshwar Rao

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

State Bank of India versus Mr. R. Madhu

Mr Iytha Yugender versus State Bank of India

Mr Purella Rakesh versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ore Doors.

Sri Santhoshimatha Enterprises versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Harihara Pack Private Ltd.