Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sai Roshini Dendukuri

DRT11 Jul 2025OA/336/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the State Bank of India for recovery of an educational loan of over Rs. 23 lakhes along with interest and costs against the two defendants, who had failed to repay the sanctioned facility. The Court held that the Bank established its claim through official witness and documentary evidence as no written statement was filed by the

What did the court decide?

Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 23,49,340 with future interest @ 10.2% p.a. from 27.08.2024. Bank is entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and persons of defendants for

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1lTH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.335 of 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery bra nch-II, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, TS- 20. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Ms. Sai Roshini Dendukuri, D/o Mr. D. Suresh Rao, H.No.9- 163/1, Sai Maruthi Nagar, Boduppal, Hyderabad Telangana - 500 035.

¶10

Mrs. Kavitha Dendukuri, W/o Mr. D. Suresh Rao, H.No.9-163/1, Sai Maruthi nagar, Boduppal, Hyderabad - 35.

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

For the Applicant : Sri A.M. Kiran Kumar

¶14

For the Defendants : Sri M. Sai Kiran

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for ve ry total sum of Rs.23,49,34O,/- (Rupees Twenty Forty Nine thousand Three hundred and forty interest @ 10.20olo p.a with monthly rests from

¶17

S#l?Bq'

¶18

(oA. No.336/202a)

¶19

27.08.2024 till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶20

2, As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendants No.1 & 2 availed Educational loan facility of Rs.27,94,036/- and agreed to repay in 180 EMIs of Rs.30,36g/- per month. The defendants executed sanction letter, letter of arrangement for term loan, agreement letter etc. The defendants created equitable mortgage of schedule property belonging to defendant no.2 in favour of Applicant bank and deposited the title deeds. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 08.1.2024 and demand notice was issued on 05.06.2024 and legal notice dated 29.07.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶21

Counsel for defendants filed Vakalath but failed to file Written statement.

¶22

Sri J. Rama Rao, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are to A.12.

¶23

ul^1r6[fJffib nsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

(oA.No.336/2024)

¶25

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶26

Counsel for defendants filed vakalath but failed to file WS. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and she exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.12. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶27

In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.23,49,34O1-^(Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Forty Nine thousand Three hundred and forty only) with future interest @ 10.20olo^p.a from 27.08.2024 till^the date of realization.

¶28

bank is entitled to^proceed against the mortgaged

¶29

as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of

¶30

Bank is also entitled to proceed against the^person of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶31

¶32

(oA.No.336/2024)

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶37

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of )uty, 2025)

¶38

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

11 tul /m5 ij,
...l;
*€.{ i'

¶40

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sai Roshini Dendukuri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sai Roshini Dendukuri

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

Canara Bank versus Mahanandi Siva Shankar Reddy

Bank of Baroda versus Mr. Methari Sathish

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Eppa Narendra

State Bank of India versus Smt. Hemalatha Chinthala

State Bank of India versus Mr. Konda Mahesh Kumar

Canara Bank versus Mr. Piwal Raj Kiran