Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Tony Mario

DRT21 Mar 2025OA/333/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an exercise-in-fact-recovery order where the Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by a bank against a loan-defaulter. After hearing the bank and noting the defendant's absence, the court upheld the claim for the outstanding loan amount plus costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendant ordered to pay Rs. 24,06,590/- with future interest at 4% p.a. from filing date till realization; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Tony Mario — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21STDAY OF MARCH'2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.333 ot 2OZ4

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-II, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, TS. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mr. Tony Mario, S/o Mr. Ruby Owen, Aged 44 years, male, occ: service, H. No. 1 -9- 1 0B 6/ A/ 2, Adikmet, VadderBasti, Hyderabad TS - 500 044.

¶10

Defendant

¶11

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant For the Defendant

¶12

Sri A.M. Kiran Kumar Exparte

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.24,O6,590,/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Six undred and ninety only) with future interest from date of filing of OA till pfi;g,n;rn$ the dat gf^realizationn ,, ] --[r'rln tms ; S5*,,_-,&f,.P.1?rr-yc%e' \lcvrnti2

¶15

(oA. No.333/2024 )

¶16

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant availed personal loan of Rs.24.10 lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 27.03.2023. The defendant executed personal agreement and irrevocable standing instruction to repay in 72 monthly instalments from 04.04.2023. After availing the loan facility, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 26.04.2024 and issued legal notice on 20.05.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶17

Defendant called absent and set exparte on t7.02.2025.

¶18

Smt M. Sarala, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined herself AS AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked AS Ex.A.1 to A.9.

¶19

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶20

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

¶21

prayed for?

¶22

To substantiate the case of the *! the Applicant Bank was examined

¶23

(OA, No.333/2024)

¶24

and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.g. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendant and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶25

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendant is liabre to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum or Rs.24,O6,59O/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Six thousand five hundred and ninety onry) with future interest @ t4o/o p.afrom date of filing of OA till the date of realization.

¶26

The Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person

¶27

and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

t2. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶31

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶32

1Oi1H Pll:l jranlcrlbed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open
stday of March, 2025)
,{/,5

¶33

sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
$n*
#1il;,8-;*o'o''

State Bank of India v. Mr. Tony Mario

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Tony Mario

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

State Bank of India versus Panipat Jalandhar Nh Tollways Private Limited

Ms Varalakshmi Seed Processing Unit versus Bank of Baroda

Sathya Narayana Gande versus Irep Credit Capital Private Limited Rep by its Authorized Officer

M/s Sls Power Corporation ltd., versus M/s. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Siri Ayyappa Fertilizers

State Bank of India versus Sri Bonthu Ravinder Reddy