Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Dontalaboina Muthaiah

DRT6 Nov 2025OA/301/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's Original Application for recovery of outstanding dues. The court found the defendant liable for the loan amount and interest, rejecting the defense regarding RBI guideline violations and limitation due to lack of proof.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 23,87,570 along with interest at 12.50% p.a. The bank is entitled to proceed against mortgaged property, person, and other properties of the defendant for the debt due.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Dontalaboina Muthaiah — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 4rH DAy OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.3O1 of 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095, Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mr. Dontalaboina Muthaiah, S/o Sri Ramchandraiah, Aged about 59 years, H.No.3-L22/15/L, Bheem Reddy nagar, Boduppal, Medchal district.

¶10

Defendant

¶11

Counsel for the Parties:

¶12

For the Applicant

¶13

Defendant

¶14

Sri C. Sreedhar Sri K. Suresh

¶15

Reserved 23.t0.202s Pronou qnx 04.Lt.2025 o r .,.,,, -^'i' 06. 1 1.2025 Uploaded^6ru%

¶16

(OA.No.301 of 2023)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2Z,87F7Ol- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Eighty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy onty) with further interest @ 12.50% p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant availed housing loan including SBI Life of rs.20.00 lakhs for purchase and construction of schedule mentioned propefty. The defendant executed Memorandum of deposit of tifle deeds in respect of schedule property. The defendant agreed to repay the loan in 228 equated monthly installments of Rs,22,600/- along with interest and charges. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on 29.06.2023. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued legal notice dated L7.10.2023, but the defendants did not come forward to Rs.23,87,579/- (Rupees nty Three Lakhs Eighty Seven ,^u4ilBl,m Tho Five Hundred and only) with further interest

¶20

(OA.No.301 of 2023)

¶21

@ 12.50o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶22

The Defendant filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is contended that the Applicant bank classified the account as NPA without intimating to the defendant. Further the applicant bank proceeded under SARFAESI Act,2002 and issued notices. The same has been challenged before Hon'ble DRT-II by filing SA.No.474l2O23 and also complied the conditional orders. It is further contended that the applicant bank obtained signatures on some blank stamp papers, formats and documents. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶23

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶24

Heard the arguments.

¶25

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶26

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendant ?

¶27

ii) ro what ,eS6:S;o;',:' {/ * - }.,jt Point o:iffr .l 'ii$. 6. Sri Katta Govind nur{,4l,rU0,16ffi oj l\irno *u, examined on behatf of r ij the Applicant q!,ithe liability of the defendants.

¶28

(OA.No.301 of 2023)

¶29

Exhibits A.1 to A.12 are marked through AW.1. Defendant examined himself as DW,1 and not filed any documents.

¶30

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant examined himself as DW.1 and not filed any documents, but his evidence is in noway helpful to him. The defendant having taken the plea that the applicant bank did not follow the RBI guidelines and that the present OA was barred by limitation, failed to place any substantial proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents exhibited by the Applicant bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendant in the normal course of transaction. The defendant very vaguely contended that particulars made in the OA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendant is liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendant is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendant. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendant.

¶31

Point

¶32

B. In is allowed with costs as ,EITFbIe"t pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Twenty Three Lakhs Eighty Seven

¶33

¶34

(OA.No.301 of 2023)

¶35

Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy only) with further interest @ 12.50% p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶36

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property as mentioned in the OA towards realisation of the debt due;

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

L2. The Applicant shaI fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶40

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶41

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

¶42

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of Nov,2025)

¶43

sdl-

¶44

(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶45

n#k,

State Bank of India v. Mr. Dontalaboina Muthaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Dontalaboina Muthaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Srinivasa Enterprises and others versus Icici Bank Limited

Sharvani Industries versus Union Bank of India

Ksr Enterprises and others versus Icici Bank Limited

Maddileti Chikkapalli versus Hdfc Bank

M S Vivimed Labs Limited versus State Bank of India

Kothuru Narasimha Rao versus Union Bank of India