Allowed

State Bank of India v. Smt. Hemalatha Chinthala

DRT11 Jul 2025OA/188/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Gummadi Gopichand, P.O., of the DRT-I at Hyderabad allowed the original application filed by State Bank of India against Smt. Hemalatha Chinthala for recovery of Rs. 21,13,465 with interest and costs, declaring the debtor liable to pay and permitting the bank to issue a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 21,13,465 with interest and costs; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Smt. Hemalatha Chinthala — Arbitration | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.188 OF 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-II, H.No.1-8-563/1, 1't floor, Opp Sandhya Theatre, RTC X roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 500 020. TS Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Smt Hemalatha Chinthala, w/o C. Mohan Rao, Safaiwala, Garrison Engineers E/M, Gunrock enclave, Secunderabad

¶10

Also at H.No.5-4011, Shamirpet, Rangareddy dist, Telangana.

¶11

Defendant

¶12

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant For the Defendant

¶13

Sri N. Meher Prasad Exparte

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for I sum of Rs.zL,L3,465/(Rupees Twenty One Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Five Only) interest @ 11.55o/o p.a with monthly resets from

¶16

(oA.No.188/2025)

¶17

till the date of 03.05.2025 apart from^{penal interest} @^2o/o realization.

¶18

As per the averments in the^{application, the ApplicantBankstates} that defendant availed^{Xpresscredit line scheme for a sum of} Rs.25.OO lakhs and executed^{personalloan agreementdated} 14.11.2022. The defendant agreed^{to repay in 72 EMIsof} Rs.48,293/- from 05.12.2022. After^{availing the loan facilities,the} defendants failed to comply^{the terms of sanction, hence the} applicant bank classified the^{accountas NPA and issuednotices'} Inspite of several requests and^{demands,the defendantdid not clear} the outstanding.^{Hence this OA.}

¶19

Defendants called^{absentand set exparte on Q2'07.2025.}

¶20

Ms. M. Sarala,^Manager of^{the Applicant Bank examined herself as} AW.1 and exhibited relevant^{documents, which are markedas} Ex.A.1 to A.6.

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel^{for the Applicant Bank.}

¶22

The^point that^{arise for consideration is whetherthe ApplicantBank is} ,".enffttifirer^{the claim made in the OA againstthe Defendantas}

¶23

7^{*-. ri:{:;'...;":':"}

¶24

r"d" .6 .'.r'iGh praysil r nitS"oii{ **** 'r ,l

¶25

4$, i!)

¶26

l-7.^{oefenOantr5r!{\neO exparte. To substantiate the case of the} 1'l .ijjl 2flfi^*ll nppiiiirit"tlan(l#w.r,^{officialof the Applicant Bank was examined}

¶27

le*4"

¶28

(oA.No.188l202sl

¶29

and she exhibited relevant documents as^Ex.A1 to A.6.^{In view of} the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank^{has established their claim} made in the OA against the Defendant and^{hence the ApplicantBank} is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA^{with future interest} and costs.

¶30

B. In the result, the^present OA^is allowed^{with costs, as under:} The Defendant is liable to^pay to the^{Applicant Bank} a^{total sum of} Rs.21,13,r'l651- (Rupees Twenty One^{LakhsThirteen Thousand} Four Hundred and Sixty Five Only) with^{pendent-lite interest@} 11.55%^p.a from 03.05.2025 till the date^{of realization.}

¶31

g. The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and^properties of defendants^{towards realization of the debt due.}

¶32

The Applicant Bank is entitled to^{the costs of the OA.}

¶33

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

¶34

Issue Recovery ceftificate accordingly.

¶35

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

¶36

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed^{and pronouncedby mein the open court on} this the 11th day of JulY,²⁰²⁵⁾

¶37

sd/(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Smt. Hemalatha Chinthala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Smt. Hemalatha Chinthala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Mahanandi Siva Shankar Reddy

Bank of Baroda versus Mr. Methari Sathish

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Eppa Narendra

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sai Roshini Dendukuri

State Bank of India versus Mr. Konda Mahesh Kumar

Canara Bank versus Mr. Piwal Raj Kiran