Allowed

State Bank of India v. Smt. Bollu Saritha

DRT1 Jan 2025OA/253/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DT allowed an Original Application by State Bank of India against four defendants (creditor's heirs). Recognizing the mortgage, the court held the bank entitled to recover the outstanding sum with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.21,22,154/- with interest @ 11.30% p.a.; Applicant entitled to realize dues from mortgaged property and awarded costs.

State Bank of India versus Smt. Bollu Saritha — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs rHE lsr DAy oF JANUARYt 2o2s

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.253 ot 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Bra n ch, 2nd floor, ISRTC, CAC, koti, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applica nt

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Smt Bollu Saritha, w/o Late Bollu Srinivas, H.No.4- 4- I22, Harijanawada Gadi, Zaheerabad Town And mandal, Sangareddy dist.

¶9

And also at:

¶10

House on plot no.16 part B, Sy.No.22614, Malkapur Village, Kondapur mandal, Sangareddy.

¶11

Sri Bollu Snehith, s/o Late Bollu Srinivas, aged 21 years, occ: business, H.no.4-4- 122, Harijanawada Gadi, Zaheerabad Town And mandal, Sangareddy dist.

¶12

And also at:

¶13

House on plot no.16 part B, Sy.No.22614, Malkapur Village, Kondapur mandal, Sangareddy.

¶14

0 1 JAN 2025

¶15

(OA. No.2s3l2024)

¶16

Sri Bollu Sathwik, s/o Late Bollu Srinivas, aged 21 years, occ: business, H. no. 4- 4 - 122, Ha rija nawada Gadi, Zaheerabad Town And mandal, Sangareddy dist.

¶17

And also at:

¶18

House on plot no.16 part B, Sy.No.226/A, Malkapur Village, Kondapur mandal, Sangareddy.

¶19

Smt Bollu Nagamma, w/o Late Bollu Ashappa, aged 1B years, occ: business, H.No.4-4-122, Harijanawada Gadi, Zaheerabad Town And mandal, Sangareddy dist.

¶20

And also at:

¶21

House on plot no.16 part B, Sy.No.22614, Malkapur Village, Kondapur mandal, Sangareddy.

¶22

Defendants

¶23

Counsel for the^parties: For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶24

Smt B. Ramana Kumari Exparte

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for I sum of Rs.21-,22,l14l- (Rupees Twenty One thousand One hundred and Fifty four only) ;'with interest @ 11.30% p.a with monthly rests

¶27

(oA. No.2s3l202a)

¶28

from 10.06.2024 tilr the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶29

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that Sri Bollu Srinivas availed housing loan of Rs.24,65,344/_ vide letter of arrangement dated lZ.O7.2O2l. As a security for repayment of aforesaid roan, sri B. srinivas executed agreement to mortgage dated L2.07.2o2r and mortgaged the schedule mentioned property in favour of the appricant bank. subsequenuy Sri Boilu srinivas expired reaving behind defendants No.1 to 4 as his regar heirs and successors of mortgaged property. After avairing the roan facirity, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NPA and issued legal notice dated 3,05.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶30

Defendants 1 to 4 called absent and set exparte on 08.11.2024.

¶31

Sri Manjul Dixit, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW' 1 and exhibited rerevant" documents, which are marked as

¶32

Ex.A.1
//*- "A
5, frpthe Ld.S[unset e Applicant Bank.
i o1JAilzo2s :
-l ,;
i -!', .fl
-oir,
;, .fl--W

¶33

(oA.No.2s3l2024)

¶34

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

¶35

Defendants 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.11. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶36

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.21,22,L541- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Twenty Two thousand One hundred and Fifty four only) with current and future interest @ 11.30o/o p.a from 10.06.2024ti11 the date of realization;

¶37

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged

¶38

property as described in schedule to OA towards realization oF the debt du

¶39

1. titled to proceed against the person wa rds realization of the debt due. 4

¶40

(oA. No.2s3l202a)

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶44

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶45

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

¶46

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶47

$ 1 JAN 2025

State Bank of India v. Smt. Bollu Saritha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Smt. Bollu Saritha

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

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Hari Priya Infra Projects

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Haripriya Infra Projects

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Sangam Srilaxmi

State Bank of India versus Smt. Radhika Sontineni

City Union Bank Limited versus M/s. Kpg Projects

M/S. Smith and Kenner Pharmaceauticals Private Limited versus Asset Reconstruction (India) Ltd. (Arcil)