Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri. Seetha Venkata Ram Prasad

DRT10 Sept 2025OA/251/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a recovery matter, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application. The tribunal held the defendants liable to repay the outstanding loan amount along with interest and permitted the sale of mortgaged properties for debt realization.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to jointly and severally pay Rs. 38,20,197/- with interest; applicants entitled to sale of mortgaged properties and personal properties for realization; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Sri. Seetha Venkata Ram Prasad — Service and Employment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrS THE lOrH DAy OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶3

OA.No.251 ot 2OZ4

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, 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

Sri Seetha Venkata Ram prasad,

¶9

s/o Komuraiah, major, male,

¶10

R/o H.No.4-2-38911, Near

¶11

Hanuman Temple, Kothur Janda,

¶12

Hanumakonda, Hanumakonda dist-01.

¶13

Smt Seetha Rajitha,

¶14

w/o Sri Seetha Venkata Ram prasad, major, female, R/o H.No.4-2-399/ L, Near Hanuman Temple, Kothur Janda, Hanumakonda, Hanumakonda dist-506 001. Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the Parties:

¶16

For the Applicant
Satya na raya na
Defendants
tram N Valpadasu
18 StP 2U5

¶17

(oA. No.2s1l2024)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery oF a total sum of Rs.38,20,197l- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Twenty Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Seven onty)

¶20

i.€.,

¶21

a) A sum of Rs.25,17,666/- with interest @ 11.75olo p,a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶22

b) A sum of Rs.4,58,964/- with interest @ 12.50o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶23

c) A sum of Rs.8,43,567/- with interest @ 12.50o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶24

and in default for sale of mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA;

¶25

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants no.1 and 2 are husband and wife availed housing loan of Rs.20.00 lakhs on 25.02.201t and executed memorandum of loan agreement. To secure due repayment of loan, the defendants no.l deposited the titre deed bearing Regd sare deed no,6965/2010 dated 18.12.2010 relating to OA schedule property. Subsequently the defendants availed SBI Easy home loan of Rs.5,75,000/- and 'ialihs .vide letter of arrangement dated 30.05.2012 rr*;!,avaired Applicant o"{ i"rthe i[q,^{1 0} Detbndant^St? T;i^{'*i - --} the said roan facirities h+^ '^a^s'; $.rp,*rz.lttV Q#il'rg

¶26

(oA.No.251l2o24l

¶27

and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NPA. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued legal notice dated 08.06.2024, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.38,2Olg7/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Twenty Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Seven only) with further interest @ 11 .75o/o p.a and @12.50o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶28

The Defendants filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is contended by the defendants that the default in payment of loan was not intentional but due to genuine financial difficulties, The defendants further contended that certain payments were not properly accounted and the total outstanding amount is less than the amount stated by the Applicant bank. It is further contended that the notices were not served in compliance with the provisions of law. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA. Defendant no.1 examined himself as DW.1 and not filed any documents.

¶29

I have placed on record.

¶30

¶31

(oA. No.2s 1/2024)

¶32

Now, the points that arise for consideration are: i) Whetherthe Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶33

ii) To what relief ?

¶34

Point No.i):

¶35

Sri Dhanunjaya Panda, Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the deFendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.23 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly establish the liability of the defendants.

¶36

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant No,1 examined himself as DW.1, he has not filed any documents, hence his evidence is in noway helpful to him. The defendant no.L having taken the plea that they made some part payments and that the present OA was barred by limitation, failed to place any substantial proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents exhibited by the Applicant bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendants in the normal course of transaction. The defendants very vaguety contended that particulars made in the OA are not correct. But as per the statement are liable to pay the OA claim. Considering of opinion that the defense taken by the

¶37

(OA. No.2s112024)

¶38

claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim

¶39

deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶40

Point No.ii)

¶41

B. In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶42

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.38,2O,197l- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs

¶43

Twenty Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Seven only) i.e.,

¶44

a) A sum of Rs.25,17,666/- with interest @ 11,75olo p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶45

b) A sum of Rs.4,58,964/- with interest @ 12.50o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶46

c) A sum of Rs.8,43,567/- wilh interest @ 12.50o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶47

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realisation of the debt due;

¶48

The ! -' Applicant^' bank ib:also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of Oefenaafu\wards realization of the debt due.

¶49

,fr ^r, o*r#r ' ;hd^{to the costs} or tne on ,

¶50

ft*;rr #"

¶51

(oA.No.25112024)

¶52

The Applicant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶53

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶54

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶55

(Dictated to [he I)'A , lranscribed Dy her, corrected, signc<J and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1Oth day of Sc,pt, 2025)

¶56

sd/-

¶57

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶58

c(}pY
i fr :;i:P ,ils
,1.lrt
.r'll *e i 5sf. lr;
' nn?.t &rl'r = -r t.rtAD.
" i,3',-1";:.alitl;;f
""

¶59

State Bank of India v. Sri. Seetha Venkata Ram Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri. Seetha Venkata Ram Prasad

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

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Sevalal Industry

State Bank of India versus S. Abhinay Kumar Reddy

Indian Overseas Bank versus Sri Venkateswara Emu Farm

State Bank of India versus Sri. K. Yogesh Commission Agent

Gaurav Lubricant Industries Private Limited versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Mallikarjuna Filling Station versus Ikf Finance Limited