Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri. Potlapalli Kamalakar Rao

DRT14 Feb 2025OA/205/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA No.205/2024, the Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's application for recovery of Rs.90,31,335/- (principal plus interest) from Sri Potlapalli Kamalakar Rao, who defaulted on home and Suraksha loans. The bank established its claim through evidence, and the Tribunal directed recovery against the defendant and mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Allowed OA with costs; ordered recovery of Rs.90,31,335/- plus interest less payments made; entitlement to proceed against mortgaged property and defendant.

State Bank of India versus Sri. Potlapalli… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY' 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.2O5 ot 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-II, SARB-II, first floor, Opp Sandhya Theatre, RTC cross roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Sri PotlapalliKamalakar Rao, s/o Sri PotlapalliMallikarjun Rao, aged about 37^years, occ: selection consu lting

¶10

unit -7, 11th floor, My Home Twitza, APIIC Hyd Knowledge, plot no.30/A, Survey no.B3/1, Raidurg, Serilingampally, Hyderabad -500 081.

¶11

¶12

Plot no.145, Vaishnavi Enclarre, Vasavi Shiva Nagar, Kapra, Hyderabad - 500 062.

¶13

¶14

Plot no.235, Sy.No.s159, 162 to 166, Weavers colony, Bhavananagar, Hyderabad - 500 062.

¶15

Defendant

¶16

Counsel for th,6,.$hies: W "b\ For the Applicart i! Forthe Defendpnt^{1 4 FEB flm} Ii

¶17

Sri G. PrabhakarSarma Ex pa rte

¶18

(oA. No.205/2024)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.90,31,335/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Five only) (Rs.86,22,6OO/- + Rs.4,08,735l-) with interest @ 9.45% p.awith monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant availed Home loan for a sum of Rs.95,09,000/- for purchase of schedule mentioned property. The defendant availed home loan of Rs.91.00 lakhs and Suraksha loan of Rs.4,09,000/- and executed memorandum oF loan agreement dated 03.08.2023 and agreement for additional loan dated 04.08.2023. On 11.08.2023, the defendant created equitable mortgage by deposit of Regd Sale deed documenl no.449t/2023 along with original agreement of sale dated 15.07.2023. After availing the loan facility, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA and issued legal notice on 26.03.2O24j" IS6 several requests and demands, the defendant a' ,':-.':r .-/ "^: i'. - did not"bear tFH g. Hence this OA. ." e'r-S

¶22

(oA.No.20sl2024)

¶23

Defendant called absent and set exparte on 23.09.2024.

¶24

Sri M. Ravinder, ManageroF the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.15. The defendants paid a sum of Rs.4,94,225/- in

¶25

Home loan account and a sum of Rs,1,15rOOO/- in Suraksha loan account after filing of this OA.

¶26

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶27

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant as prayed for?

¶28

Defendant remained exparte. 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 established their claim made in the OA against the Defendant and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶29

B. In the result, the^present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defen to the Applicant Bank a total sum of 6

¶30

Rs.9O,31,395/Lakhs Thirty One Thousand rhree Hundry{ pflgd2dhirty only) (Rs.86,22,6OO/- +

¶31

"rq-s

¶32

(oA.No.20sl2024)

¶33

Rs.4,O8,735l-) with interest @ 9.45% p.afrom date of application till the date of realization LESS a sum of Rs.6,O9,225/(Rs.4,94,225/- +Rs.1,15,OOO/-) paid by defendants after filing of OA.

¶34

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

¶35

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶39

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of Feb, 2025)

¶41

sdl-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
COPY
oarsffiii*'uu*^'
4

State Bank of India v. Sri. Potlapalli Kamalakar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri. Potlapalli Kamalakar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Sri Devarakonda Veeraraju

State Bank of India versus Sri , Jumpula Shekar

Canara Bank versus M/S. Shiva Traders

Smt D Geetha Bharath versus Telangana Grameena Bank

Mr Abdul Raheem Mohd versus Iifl Housing Finance Limited

Mr Abdul Hafeez Mohd versus Iifl Housing Finance Limited