Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri. Shaswanth Kumar Gampala

DRT5 May 2025OA/288/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Dealer Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's application (OA No. 288 of 2024) for recovery of a total sum of Rs. 36,56,515/- including interest and costs against the Defendant for outstanding housing and top-up loan dues. The Tribunal also directed issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

The Applicant Bank was directed to recover Rs. 36,56,515/- plus interest and costs; a Recovery Certificate was to be issued; and the bank could proceed against mortgaged property.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrs rHE srnDAy oF MAy, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶4

OA.No.288 ot 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC, CAC, Koti, Hyderabad, TS. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Sri Shaswanth Kumar Gampala, s/o Sri G. Emmanuel Prasad Kumar, aged 27 years, occ: business, flat no.201, Bhavani residency, Godavari homes, Suchitra, Quthbullapur,^Jideemetla, Hyderabad - 500 067.

¶10

And also at:

¶11

Advitha Garments, plot no.07, 2"d floor, Uma nagar, New Boinpally, Secunderabad - 500 011.

¶12

Defendant

¶13

Counsel for the Parties:

¶14

For the Ap

¶15

For the De

¶16

Smt B. RamanaKumari Sri T. Ranadhir Singh

¶17

(OA.No.288 of 2024)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.36,56,51S/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Fifty Six thousand Five hundred and Fifteen only) i.e.,

¶20

a) A sum of Rs.21,54,045/- under toan A/c.No.41t04529248 in respect of housing loanwithcurrent and Future interest @ 10.65% p.a with monthly rests from 09.07.2024 till the date of realization;

¶21

b) A sum of Rs.50,759 in respect of housing loan insurance account with current and future interest @ 10.650lo p.a with monthly rests from 09.07.2024 till the date of realization ;

¶22

c) A sum of Rs.14,51,7|t/- in respect of housing top up loan account with current and future interest @ 11,05o/o p.a with monthly rests from 09.07.2024 til the date of realization ;

¶23

and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶24

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant availed housing loan of Rs.21,50,000/- on 06.07.2022 and Suraksha loan scheme of Rs.48,000/-. The defen_danlcreated equitable mortgage of immovable property and ndum of loan agreement for housing loan on

¶25

dfro.ot.zg'Zz. uently the defendant availed housing loan top

¶26

i;:^{uPb6ng'ffi&3,ooqt-} and executed agreement for home top up loan

¶27

(OA.No.288 of 2024)

¶28

on 06'07.2022. After avairing the roan facirities, the defendant faired to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA and issued regar notice dated 77.04.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶29

Ld counsel sri r. Ranadhir singh rired vakarath on beharf of defendant but failed to file written statement.

¶30

4' Shri ManjurDixit, Manager of the Appricant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.21.

¶31

Heard the Ld, Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶32

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶33

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant as prayed for?

¶34

Counsel for defendant filed vakalth but failed to file WS. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Applicant Bank wag'eldmihed.and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 rc '', /.9!Af;i*!^nf In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has fI e S[sf ab lished tished^-their their c tl a li m^,funade in the OA against the

¶35

i: :: "afiAtllll^o5iltrmr ^i^_il i "i . ^f i, &*-w#

¶36

(oA.No.288 of 2024)

¶37

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

¶38

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.36,56,515/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Fifty Six thousand Five hundred and Fifteen only) i.e.,

¶39

a) A sum of Rs.21,54,045/- under loan A/c.No.4L|O452924B in respect of housing loan with current and future interest @ 10.650/o p.a from 09.07.2024 till the date of realization;

¶40

b) A sum of Rs.50,759 in respect of housing loan insurance account with current and future interest @ 10.650lo p.a from 09.07.2024 till the date of realization ;

¶41

c) A sum of Rs.14,51,717/- in respect of housing top up loan account wlth current and future interest @ 11.05olo p.a From 09.07.2024 till the date of realization ;

¶42

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

¶43

the Applicant Bank is alsoen{tled to proceed against the person and .i

¶44

properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶45

The Appl ts of the OA.

¶46

(OA. No.288 of 2024)

¶47

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

¶48

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶49

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶50

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

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

I
*
L

trFuEpoP\tt/z
tl1s.oe7{.v

State Bank of India v. Sri. Shaswanth Kumar Gampala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri. Shaswanth Kumar Gampala

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. Muttagi Srisailam

Smt Koneru Kasi Ratnam versus Indian Bank

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

Patlolla Venkateshwara Reddy versus Bank of Baroda

Patlolla Venkateshwara Reddy versus Bank of Baroda

Mr Redda Boina Gopinath versus the Sircilla Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.