Partly allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Kalepu Shivaji Prasad

DRT11 Apr 2025OA/289/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of a housing loan and penal interest amounting to Rs 43,60,978. While permitting recovery from the respondent borrower, the court dismissed the specific prayer for a mortgage decree due to lack of registered title deeds.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs 43,60,978 with interest @ 8.55% p.a. and penal interest @ 2% allowed. Mortgage claim dismissed. Recovery certificate issued against respondent borrower.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Kalepu Shivaji… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1lTH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.289 ot 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, SARB-1, 2nd floor, TSRTC commuter Amenity Centre, Bus terminal Complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 95. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. kalepuShivaji Prasad, s/o Sri Kalepu Pradesh,

¶10

aged 38^years, male, R/o H.No.11-t2-I37, flat no.301,

¶11

Bhavana Residency, R.K. Puram, Saroornagar, Hyderabad - 500 035.

¶12

Other address:

¶13

Mr. KalepuShivaji Prasad, S/o Srl Kalepu Pradesh, male, Aged about 38 years, R/o flat bearing No.202, 2nd floor, Sri Lakshmi Ambika Residency, A block, Municipal office Road, Krish naven in aga r,

¶14

Gaddiannaram village, Sa roornaga r
Mandal, GHMC, RR district- 500 060.
. :': )
2. Mr. Abey Kumar, ,.i: 'a.,r
ia
Male, major, flat bearing no.202, . .t' - pi, g{
dfi
2^d floor, Sri Lakshmi Ambikg ;: ,r.
Residency, A block, Municipal
liilrl'l11lil:.111::':--^^--:;E. 1 1 "' APRM rr (r'Lr' *
Gaddiannaram village, Saroornagbr
Mandal, GHMC, RR district- 500.060oi
^ 5,
@,sffiqs7

¶15

(oA. No.289/2022 )

¶16

M/s. LIC Housing Finance Ltd, Represented by its Authorised officer, Flat no.304 & 305, 3'd Floor, HUDA Complex, Main road, near Maitrivanam, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500 016. DeFenda nts

¶17

Counsel for the Parties:

¶18

For the Applicant : Sri Y. Venkataramana

¶19

For the Defendants No.1 &2 : Exparte Defendant no.3 : M/s. Ramu& Associates

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.43,60,978l- (Rupees Forty three lakhs Sixty Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Eight only) with further interest @ 8.55% p.aand also penal interest @ 2% from the date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 availed housing loan of Rs.27,06,000/for purchasing schedule mentioned property vide application dated 27.03.2017. The applicant bank disbursed a sum of Rs.39,15,000/as first instalment on 1 2077 on basis of agreement of sale and '' I balance amount r" of .ns.ifs)vs on 19.05.2017. The defendant no.1 also avaiibd ss(.,.b an of Rs.1,55,590/- towards insurance or fie scl'd0ufigndm"nyl ant no.1 availed the loan

¶23

¶24

(OA. No.289/2022 )

¶25

and faired to register the equitabre mortgage in respect of schedure property. Defendant no.1 sord the schedure propertyto defendant no.2 through the regd sale deed dated 10.06.2019 bearing doc.No.298U2019 and misappropriated the loan outstanding. Defendant no.1 also availed loan from defendant no.3/ LICHFL.

¶26

It is submitted by the Appricant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on 07.03.2022 and issued notices. Inspite of demands made by Appricant the defendants have not regurarized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is oF Rs.43,60,97g/- (Rupees Forty three lakhs Sixty Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Eight only) with further interest @ 8.55% p.a and also penal interest @ 20/o from the date of application ti, the date of rearization. Hence the OA.

¶27

The Defendant No.3 Filed written 'r^{I rLr-r} I s tatem, Ldtement and denied _ vv,,rsu theLII€ av errn.hr^ - t tett.,v erments made in OA. Sri Abhay Kumar F ^umar^{Patro/ defendant} -' "''srtuortr fln o '. 2 availedlvaile.r hnr,-;-^ housing roan For A e,,hr ^6 ^ rrorn of Rs'75'00'0-0 o/- on 28.05.2019 from de fenre. d ant .hl -- no.3.^^" |a stopped paying EMIs from and 10.03.2023 and issued demand the "+;;hri,i].tnotice dated as NpA on 09.06.2023 :3!ed^18.07,2023. rh ll ,, u original v"'st titieLlLlt no.29B1/2Olg has been OuporituO with, oerendant no.3/LICHFL as 3

¶28

(oA. No.289/2022 )

¶29

such no prior charge exists upon the property and defendant no.3 has First charge over the property.Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶30

3 The Appricant Bank in support of its craim, fired evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Sri R. Loganathan, Manager as AW.1 and through him marked 14 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.14. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their beharf in support of their contentions and arso did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert his Chief Evidence. Inspite of repeated adjournments, the defendants faired to fire evidence Affidavit, hence the right of firing Defendant Evidence Affidavit was crosed on 24.02.2025.

¶31

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶32

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶33

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in

¶34

OA against the defendants ?

¶35

ii) To what relief ?

¶36

Point No.i):

¶37

Bank and also as per the Written statement, it is loan from the Applicant

¶38

(oA. No.289/2022)

¶39

Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defendants are clearly mentioned in the statement of account filed by Applicant Bank.

¶40

According to Applicant bank, the loan has been sanctioned to defendant no.1 for purchase of application schedule property on the basis of agreement of sale dated 04.03.2017, executed by vendor of defendant no.1 in favour of Defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 at the time of sanction of loan, had executed agreement to mortgage dated 19.05.2017. But defendant no.1 after purchase of schedule property did not deposit the originar tiue deeds of schedule property and fraudulently sold the schedule property to defendant no.2, who avaired roan from defendant no.3/ LICHFL by depositing the original title deeds. so in the absence of originar tiue deeds with the Applicant bank, basing on only agreement to mortgage, executed by defendant no,1 in favour ofapplicant bank, it cannot be said that there is a valid mortgage in favour of Applicant bank. Hence Applicant Bank would not be entitled to mortgage decree.

¶41

Point No.ii)

¶42

application is allowed with costs as under: The to Applicant Bank a total sum of ree lakhs Sixty Thousand

¶43

(OA. No.289/2022)

¶44

Nine Hundred and Seventy Eight only) with further interest @

¶45

8.55% p.a from the date of apprication tiil the date of rearization;

¶46

B' The Claim of mortgage by Applicant bank in respect of application schedule property is hereby dismissed.

¶47

9' The Appricant Bank is arso entired to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.ltowards rearization of the debt due.

¶48

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

¶49

The Appricant sha, fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶50

72, Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶51

Communicate a co of the order to the parties concerned.

¶52

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribe,PY thrs the r1,h ;;r;; ffii};d bv her, corrected, sisned and pronounced by me in the open court on

¶53

-r'dt
'.{'
ii 11AP}N6
w

¶54

sd/-
(G. GOPtcHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶55

lRuh GOPY
,laI
Asst Etgltlr''' "
oir't rv''-''

State Bank of India v. M/S. Kalepu Shivaji Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Kalepu Shivaji 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Sri. Boinpally Venkatesh

Idbi Bank versus Sri. Bodakunta Vasanth

State Bank of India versus M/S. S.R. Cements Bricks

Idbi Bank versus Smt D Hymavathi Reddy

State Bank of India versus Namo Balaji Food Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Sai Honda