Allowed

State Bank of India v. Smt. Uma Vani

DRT18 Dec 2025OA/303/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application by State Bank of India for recovery of home loan dues. The bank proved its case unopposed as respondents forfeited their right to file statements, adduce evidence, or advance arguments. The Tribunal held respondents jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

OA allowed; respondents to pay Rs. 1,28,59,067 with 10% interest; bank entitled to proceed against schedule property and respondents' assets; Recovery Certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Smt. Uma Vani — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB.^(Hons.), M.A. PRESID]NG OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 303 OF 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India Stressed Asset Recovery Branch-I Koti, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Chief Manager.

¶6

....Applica nt.

¶7

And

¶8

Smt. Uma Vani Wo^{Sri I. Mohan Raju} Age: 59 years, Occ: Business.

¶9

Sri I. Mahan Raju S/o Sri I.R.K. Prasada Raju Age: 58^years, Occ: Business

¶10

Both residents of Flat No.C.601 C-Block, Fortune Towers Besides IOC Petrol Pump ..... Defendants. Madhapur, Hyderabad-81.

¶11

Counsel forApplicant : Mr. Mettu Srinivas Reddy. Counsel for Defendants : Mr. P. Pratap.

¶12

:: ORDER ::

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,28,59,0671- along with future interest @12olo per annum (inclusive of 2olo towards penal interest) with monthly rests from the defendants from 0J.O5.2024 till the K'"r

¶14

oa.103/2024

¶15

date of realisation along with costs and sale of OA schedule prope rty.

¶16

The averments of applicant bank as per the OA, briefly, are that defendants availed a home toan limit of Rs.1,20, OO,0O0/_ from the Saifabad Branch pursuant to sanction letter dated 28.O9.2072 to be payable with 1O% interest per annum compounded monthly and executed necessary loan documents. The defendants deposited original tiUe deeds of the OA schedule property to secure the due repayment of the loan and executed l4emorandum of Deposit of Tifle Deed dated 03.11.2012. Defendants became irregular in repayment resulting in account becoming NpA on13.11.2023. Applicant bank issued a legal notice dated 05.02.2024 which has been duly served on the defendants. Thereafter applicant issued a notice u,/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. In view of the above facts and circumstances, applicant bank filed the present OA for recovery of outstanding dues in respect of the home loan.

¶17

Mr. P. Pratap, filed Vakalat on behalf of the defendants. However, he did not choose to file written statement despite 9ranting sufficient opportunity. Defendants right of filing written statement was forfeited vide docket order dated 25.04.2025.

¶18

Applicant Bank examined K. Geetha Lakshmi, Manager as AW_ 1 and marked 14 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.14.

¶19

Despite conditional order Defendants failed to adduce evidence on their behalf. Defendants right of adducing evidence was forfeited vide docket order aatea rc,L0.20257fu,O_th

¶20

oA.303/2024

¶21

Heard learned counsel^{for the applicantbank. Defendants'right} of advancing arguments^{forfeitedon 28.LL-2o25. Perused the} material^placed on^record.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing^{for the applicant bank would submit} that the defendants^{not only committeddefault in repaymentof} loans but also failed to^{file wrltten statement,adduce evidence} and advance arguments^{in the OA proceedingsdespiteP'} Pratap, Advocate filed^{Vakalat. Accordingly, applicant bank} proved its claim against the defendants^{unopposedon the} strength of Exhibits A.1^{to A.14 filed through the evidence} affidavit of AW.1.^{With these submissions,learnedcounsel} prayed for allowing the OA claim^{in the interestof justice.}

¶23

The point that arises^{for considerationis:-}

¶24

whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled} for the oA claim^againstthe Defendants and the OA^schedule property?

¶25

As stated supra,^{defendants did not chooseeither to file the} written statement or^{adduce evidence and advance arguments} desplte^{grantingsufficient time for doing so. Undersuch} circumstances,^{the EvidenceAffidavitof AW'1coupledwiththe} recitals in documents^{viz.,Exs.A.1to A.14markedon behalf of} the applicant bank^{remains unchallengedand un-rebutted'} Hence, I hold that^{defendants 1 and 2 are jointly and severally} liable to^pay the^{claimmade by the AppriBnt Bank in the O'A} ' Nwyrn,/ .91

¶26

with future interest^and costs. //'^/$tt' I -,'

¶27

¶28

oA30312024

¶29

In the result, the present Original Application No.303/2024 is

¶30

allowed as under: -

¶31

i) defendants 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,28,59,067/- to the applicant bank with future interest @10% per annum simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶32

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of OA schedule property and the applicant bank is entiHed to proceed against the same for recovery of its dues;

¶33

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendants for realization of its dues; and

¶34

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶35

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶36

L2, Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶37

communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload on official Web portal.

¶38

!?1.::_,1r":::[:t;1o, day of December, 2025).sisned and pronounced by me in the open courr on this the 18,,,

¶39

^ku't

¶40

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Smt. Uma Vani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Smt. Uma Vani

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Bandar Chand Basha

Kontham Padmavathi versus Vardhaman Mahila Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Bank of India versus Sri. Avinash Pasumarthi

Ms Om Sri Venkata Sai Enterprises and Others versus Union Bank of India

Icici Bank Limited versus Dara Pragna Prathyusha

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Sri Sr Fly Ash Bricks