Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. K.S. Care Hospital

DRT21 Aug 2025OA/92/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA No.92/2025, the State Bank of India sought recovery of dues of Rs.1.86 crore from four respondents (hospital and proprietors). The Debt Recovery Tribunal examined evidence and, noting the respondents appeared ex-parte, held they were jointly liable. The application was allowed, directing payment of the loan and GECL amount with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,86,60,274/- with future interest; OA claim secured by mortgage realizable; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S. K.S. Care Hospital — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 92 OF 2025

¶5

State Bank of India., Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), D.No. 54-20- 1B/3t/36 3'd Floor, Upstairs of KFC, Surya Prakash Square, Gurunanak Nagar Road, Vijayawada - 520008. Rep by its Chief Manager.

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s.K.S.Care Hospital., Rep by its Proprietrix- the Defendant 2 Herein, D.No.7612-D-4-1, Mamatha Nagar, Opp Srinivasa Plaza, Kallur Road, Behind New Bus Stand Kurnool Town and District - 51800.

¶9

Dr.Smt.Bathana Kusuma W/o.Dr.Sri.Bangi Lal Bahadur Sastry Aged about 41 Years, Female

¶10

Occ: Doctor and Proprietrix of^{1st Defendant} D.No.89, Ravis Residency, Near Nandyal Check Post, Telecom Nagar, Kurnool-518002.

¶11

Also at:-

¶12

D.No.50-760-448, Birla Gadda Colony Near Kotla Railway Station, Gayatri^Estate Kurnool - 518002.

¶13

Dr.Sri.Bangi Lal Bahadur Sastry S/o.Sri.Bangi Linganna, Aged about 43 Years Male, Occ: Doctor, D.No.89, Ravis Residency Near Nandyal, Check Post, Telecom Nagar Kurnool_518002. ffi*

oA.NO.92l202s

Also at:-

D. No. 50-760 -448, Bitla Gadda Colony Near Kotla Railway Station, Gayatri Estate Kurnool - 518002.

¶18

Smt.Bathana Lakshmi Narayanamma W/o.Sri. Bathana Pullappa Aged about 64 Years, Female, Occ: Business H.No.12-1-584, Ward No.12, Ashok Nagar 34d Cross, Anantapur District - 515001.

¶19

... Defendants

¶20

Counsel for the Applicant

¶21

: Mr. G.Prabhakar Sarma

Defendants

: Ex-parte

:: ORDER::

The Applicant Bank fited the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.1,86,60,2741- i.e., a sum of Rs.1,30,90,019/towards Term Loan A/c.No.39660522788 with interest @11.650lo^p.a. and a sum of Rs.55,70,255/- towards GECL (1.O-Extn) A/c.No.40731252461 with interest @9.90o/o p.a. from the defendants jointly and severally with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of OA schedule properties.

¶26

Summons served on D1 to 4 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on 12.06.2025 as called absent and no representation,

¶27

The Applicant Bank examined G.Sambasiva Rao, Dy. Manager, as AW-1 and marked 26 documents through him as Ex. A. 1 to Ex. 4.26. N*t"

¶28

oA.NO.92l2025

¶29

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. Perused the material placed on record.

¶30

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶31

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA schedule properties?

¶32

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte.^The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.26 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the^Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are^jointly and severally^liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future^interest and costs.

¶33

In the result, the present Original Application No.92l2025 is allowed as under: -

¶34

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,86,60,274/- i.€., a sum of Rs.1,30,90,019/- towards Term Loan A/c.No,39660522788 and a sum of Rs,55,70,255/- towards GECL^(1.O-Extn) A/c.No.40731252461; with future interest @9.15olo^p.a. simple from the date^of application till the date of realization;

¶35

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of mortgage of properties described in the schedule 'K*Y

¶36

oA.NO.921202s

¶37

¶38

annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶39

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

¶40

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶41

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

¶42

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶43

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2fⁱ Day of August, 2025).

¶44

Awy....,o,* ( t/^r-r\)" (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. M/S. K.S. Care Hospital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. K.S. Care Hospital

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

Seela Suri Babu versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Trithika Naresh Traders

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Shivram Sarbendu Mallick

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Quality Engineering

State Bank of India versus Sandhya Vani

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Y Sai Praveen Kumar