Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri. Muttagi Srisailam

DRT2 May 2025OA/265/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order by the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India against three defendants for recovery of a blended loan account. After hearing the bank, the tribunal dismissed the defense in absence and granted recovery of the principal and interest.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 22,74,416/- (net of partial payment) with interest and costs; order directed to defendants to pay jointly and severally; relief of recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Sri. Muttagi Srisailam — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2NDDAY OF MAY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.265 of 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-II, H. No.1-B-563/1, 1st floor, Opp Sandhya Theatre, RTC X roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, Telangana state - 500 020. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Sri MuttagiSrisailam, S/o Late M. Rudranna, R/o H.No.5-1-149/3, 4, Shaukarpet, Tandur Municipality And mandal, Ranga Reddy dist Tandur - 501 141.

¶10

Mr. B. Suresh Babu, s/o B. Ramulu, male, aged 53 years,

¶11

occ: State Govt employee, R/o H.No.4-2 -t27 , Vignanpuri colony, Tandur - 501 141.

¶12

Sri D. Ravindra Kumar, s/o D. Chandraiah, male, aged 55 years, occ: employee at ZPHS, R/o 1-1-11/13E marikamba colony, Malreddypally road, Vikarabad, Tandur - 501 141. Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Parti For the Applicant Meher Prasad For the Defendant Lakshmidhar J,^oz ,rt-c, .,, \Yrdut* N.-.;i

¶14

(oA.No.26sl2023)

¶15

DeFendant no.2 Defendant no.3

Sri K. Kranthi Kumar

Exparte

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.22,74,4L5l- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Seventy four Thousand Four hundred and Sixteen only) i.e., a sum of Rs.8,59,454/- with interest @ 77.25o/o p.aand a sum of Rs.14,14,9621- with interest @ 10.75olo p.awith monthly rests from 20.09.2023 till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 and defendants 2 and 3 stood as guarantorsavailed cash credit loan of Rs.10.00 lakhs and demand loan of Rs.1.00 lakh on 10.03.2015 against the hypothecation of stock in trade. On 03.06.2020, the defendant no.1 availed GECL of Rs.2.00 lakhs and agreed to repay in 36 monthly installments. Defendant no.1 availed covid loan of Rs.2 lakhs and later the cash credit limit of Rs.10.00 lakhs was enhanced to Rs.15.75 lakhs for a

¶21

period of 12 month After availing the loan facilities, the defendantsa pplican fBm e ount terms as of NPA sanction, and legal hence notices.the i ozltAYzo2s \J W**nW

¶22

(oA. No.26sl2023)

¶23

Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶24

Counsel for Defendants No.1& 2 filed vaklath but failed to file Written statement. Defendant no.3 called absent and set exparte on 09.12.2024.

¶25

Sri M. Ravinder, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.31. Applicant bank filed part satisfaction memo stating that the defendants paid a sum of Rs.3,65,762l- in loan account after filing of 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 DeFendants as prayed for?

¶28

Counsel for Defendants No.1 & 2 filed vakalath but failed to file Written statement. Defendant no.3 remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the

¶29

Applica examined and he exhibited relevant documents iew of the above, I hold that the Applicant ir claim made in the OA against the

¶30

t{AY 2[6

¶31

i:^{o 2}

¶32

(oA. No.26sl2023)

¶33

Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶34

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.22,74,4L6/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Seventy four Thousand Four hundred and Sixteen only) i.e., a sum of Rs.8,59,454l- with interest @ 17.25olo p.a and a sum of Rs.14,14,962/- with interest @ lO.75o/o p.a from 20.09.2023 till the date of realizationLESS a sum of Rs.3,65,762 /- paid by defendants.

¶35

9, The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization oF the debt due;

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶40

t4. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶41

P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on

¶42

sd/-

¶43

0 2 ilAY 2025

¶44

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶45

"ti#!I1-'9,'

¶46

b#li'ivo-enaero'

State Bank of India v. Sri. Muttagi Srisailam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri. Muttagi Srisailam

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Central Bank of India versus M/s. Aiguille Hotels Inc.

State Bank of India versus Sri.Bharat Singh Rajput

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sree Sree Enterprises

Smt Koneru Kasi Ratnam versus Indian Bank

Sri Shankar San Sahoo Rajputh versus Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sri. Shaswanth Kumar Gampala