Allowed

State Bank of India v. Smt. Molgara Bhagyalakshmi

DRT7 Oct 2025OA/273/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Order Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of loans. The Tribunal held that the bank established its claim and ordered the respondent to pay a total sum of Rs. 75,60,667/- along with future interest. The bank was also permitted to proceed against mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs. 75,60,667/- plus future interest on various loan accounts. Applicant bank authorized to proceed against mortgaged property and hypothecated vehicle. Recovery certificate

State Bank of India versus Smt. Molgara Bhagyalakshmi — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 7rH DAy OF OCTOBER,2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.273 of 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-2, 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Koti, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Smt Molgara Bhagyalakshmi, w/o Sri M, Krishnaiah, aged about 34 years, occ: business, R/o 3-7/1, Wanapatla, Nagarkurnool - 509 209.

¶10

And also at

¶11

R/o H.No. 15- llt/ 12/ t5/ Al t, Plot no.57, Sy.No.324, Vivekananda colony, Nagarkurnool - 509 209.

¶12

Defendant

¶13

Counsel for the Parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendant

Sri CH. Dayakar Rao

Exparte

ORDER

AEe ::^.i 3t1\ 1, The Applicant k"filed t against Defendant for recovery 'S^{</sup> 'i i;tr" iii of a total su 1^{pr ns.ll,^6_o,g-97 t-} * pees Seventy Five Lakhs 0 7 ocT 2t[5 Sixty Th { Six Hundred and 3 Seven only)i.e., ,a+ ;r.':f (oj),vrr.*.roer-:$Y;, w!ry}

¶20

(oA.No.273l202s)

¶21

a) A sum of Rs.33,04,454/- with future interest @ 8.650lo p.a in respect of home loan facility from date of application till the date of realization;

¶22

b) A sum of Rs.|,46,241l- with future interest @ 8.650/o p.a in respect of Suraksha account from date of application till the date of realization;

¶23

c) A sum of Rs.16,92,987/- with future interest @ 7.650lo p.a in respect of Home top up loan account from date of application till the date of realization;

¶24

d) A sum of Rs.24,16,985/- with future interest @ 12.40olo p.a in respect of Term loan account from date of application till the date of realization;

¶25

And in default for sale of mortgaged property and hypothecated vehicle as mentioned in the schedule^..A & 8,, to OA.

¶26

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant availed Home loan facility of Rs.29.00 lakhs and suraksha Home Insurance of Rs.1,39,919/- vide letter of arrangement dated 26.09.2019. The defendant availed home top up loan of Rs.16,50,000/- on 13.06.2022 on mortgage of immovable property and deposited the .2022. The defendant again availed term 'Affi'4;.'1fl{ .10.2022 and hypothecated the vehicle as lntionet U1fnftffn"Tlfl to oA. After avaitins the loan facilities, il-OefenOant failed^teio#nply the terms of sanction, 1-1 ,it _c lr,,i ..,.i''^'d --*Jlli:.+' \Qi#illiiiult',;/ >rr--j r- :r --z:t-

¶27

(oA.No.273l202s)

¶28

hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA on 13.07.2024 and issued legal notice dated 02.04.2025. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶29

Defendant called absent and set exparte on 10.09.2025.

¶30

Smt Kalyani Rathod, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined herself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1to A.22.

¶31

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶32

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

¶33

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.22. 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 in the OA with future interest and

¶34

costs. tu 8. In the result, pr4ddl6h ffir with costs, as u nder:

¶35

(oA.No.2731202s)

¶36

The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.75,6o,667l- (Rupees seventy Five Lakhs sixty Thousand six Hundred and Sixty Seven only)i.e.,

¶37

a) A sum of Rs.33,04,454l- with future interest @ 8.650lo p.a in respect of home loan facility from date of application till the date of realization;

¶38

b) A sum of Rs.1,46,241l- with future interest @ 8.650/o p.a in respect of suraksha account from date of application till the date of realization;

¶39

c) A sum of Rs.16,92,987/- with future interest @ 7.65% p.a in respect of Home top up loan account from date of application till the date of realization;

¶40

d) A sum of Rs.24,16,985/- with future interest @ 12.40% p.a in respect of Term loan account from date of application till the date of realization;

¶41

The Applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the schedule mentioned mortgaged property and hypothecated vehicle towards realisation of the debt due.

¶42

The Applicant Bank roceed against the person and properties of n of the debt due. 11. i' &/'t0Gltdffiu of the OA.

¶43

(oA.No.273l202s)

¶44

t2. The Applicant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶45

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶46

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶47

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of Oct, 2025)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

6%
u * alr/clztx *
S,, i
ffi,*rot"S
$Hlt'i99

¶52

ff.sFffft-'
'^::'ffi-

¶53

DRT-I,^HY}EfrTIEAD'

State Bank of India v. Smt. Molgara Bhagyalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Smt. Molgara Bhagyalakshmi

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

Mr Ajay Kumar Jogu versus Smfc India Home Finance Ltd.

Mr Sikander Ali versus Icici Bank Limited

Sri Chilakalapudi Seetha Rama Rao versus State Bank of India

Syed Mohammed Yousuf Hussain versus Hdb Financial Services

Ms Sri Nandini Restaurant and Bar versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Mallikarjuna Markets