Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ms.Parsi Rohini

DRT28 Jan 2026OA/157/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application under SARFAESI Act, the bank sought recovery of an education loan of Rs. 33.31 lakhs from two defendants who defaulted. The defendants denied liability citing blank execution and RBI guideline violations. The tribunal held the bank's evidence sufficient and dismissed the defenses, allowing the recovery claim with interest.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed with costs. Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 33,31,618/- with interest at 10.65% p.a. from filing date till realization.

State Bank of India versus Ms.Parsi Rohini — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 28rH DAy OF JANUARYt 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADT GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.L57 ot 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Asset Recovery Branch (SARB-II) 1-8-563/1, RTC Cross roads, Opp Sandhya Theatre, lst floor, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 500 020, Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Ms. Parsi Rohini, D/o Mr. Parsi Mahesh Kumar, Aged 23 years, female, H.No.7-8-23, Gandhi gunj, Nizamabad - 503 00i.

¶10

Mr. Parsi Mahesh Kumar, s/o Parsi Rajasekha' aged 49 years, male, H.No.7-8-23, Gandh' gunj, Nizamabad - 503 001.

¶11

Defen da nts

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

For the Applicant

Sri C. Prabhakar

Defendant No.1No.1

Defendant No.1No.1 Sri C. Shantappa Defendant no.2 Sri G. Dinesh Kumar Orders 21.01 .2026 Pronounced 8.0 1 .20 26 : Uploaded in:, 9.07.2026 itelri J$t 2026 , :^j

¶17

(OA. No.15712024)

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.33,31,618/- (ttupees Thirty Three Lakhs Tharty One Thousand Six Hundred and Eighteen only) with further interest @ 10.65% p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants No.1 and 2 availed Education loan of Rs.28,50,000/- for pursuing post graduation course at United Kingdom vide letter of arrangement dated 27.O9.2021. Defendants jointly executed loan cum hypothecatlon agreement dated 27.9.2021 and agreed to repay in 180 equated monthly installments of Rs.27,484/commencing from April, 2023. To secure due repayment of aforesaid Education loan, the defendant no.2 created mortgage of schedule mentioned property and deposited the sale deed no.1272/2014 dated 18.11.2013. The Bank has sold the said property for Rs.82.00 lakhs on 28.72.2023 under SARFAESI Act and sale proceeds adjusted to the loan account of M/s. Parsi Sivayya and Company and hence not sought relief against the schedule property. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants availed the said loan facilities and failed to yment schedule, as such the account was classified I notice dated 16.03.2024. Inspite of demands defendants have not regularized the account,

¶21

(OA. No.15712024)

¶22

and the Applicant bank issued recall notice dated 01.10.2019, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.33,31 ,618/ - (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Six Hundred and Eighteen only) with further interest @ 10.65% p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization. Hence the OA. 2. The Defendant No.1 filed written statement and denied the averments

¶23

made in OA. It is submitted by the defendant that the Applicant bank obtained signatures on blank papers without disclosing the contents of documents. It is further contended that the loan account was declared NPA without following the guidelines of RBI and further submitted that the Applicant bank failed to serve notice on defendant. Hence prayed for d ism issa I of OA.

¶24

Defendant no.2 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is submitted that the defendant no.2 extended mortgage on 27 .O9.2027 by way of extension of mortgage dated 27 .O9.2021 and the said property was sold for Rs.82.00 lakhs on 28.12.2023 and the sale proceeds are credited to Parsi Sivayya. It is further submitted that the Applicant bank failed to charge the interest rate as per the terms of agreement and charged penal interest which is in violation of the norms fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

¶25

ra's case. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶26

ments placed on record.

¶27

¶28

{oA.^No.1s71202a)

¶29

Heard the arguments.

¶30

Now, the points that arise for consideration are: i) Whether the Appllcant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶31

ii) To what relief ?

¶32

Point No.i):

¶33

Mr. J. Rama Rao, Officer / AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.B are marked through AW.1. Defendant No.1 examined herself as DW.1 but not filed any documents.

¶34

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though the 1't defendant examined herself as DW.1 but not filed any documents. her evidence is in noway helpful to her. The defendants having taken the plea that the applicant ban< diC 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 defendants in the normal course of transaction. The defendants very vaguely t':ntended that^particulars made in the OA are not correct. But as^per the statement of accounts, the defendants OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I defense taken by the defendants is not tenable. nk is entitled to claim the OA amount from

¶35

(oA.No.7s7l2o2a)

¶36

defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed^against the defendants.

¶37

Point No.ii)

¶38

B. In the result, the^present Original application^{is allowedwith costs aS} under:

¶39

The Defendants are^jointly and severally^liable to^{pay to Applicant} Bank a total sum of Rs.33,31,618/'(Rupees Thirty^ThreeLakhs Thirty One Thousand Six Hundred and^Eighteen only)^with further interest @ 10.650/o^p.a from date of^{filing of OA till the date oi} realization ;

¶40

The Applicant bank is also entitled^{to proceedagainst the person and} properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶41

The Applicant Bank is entitled^{to the costs of the OA.}

¶42

t2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo^{within two weeks from the date} cf receipt of order.

¶43

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶44

Communicate a copy of the order^{to the parties concerned'}

¶45

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed^{and pronouncedby me in the open court on} this the 28tr' day of Jan' 2026)

¶46

sd/ -

¶47

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶48

2 8 lfiN 2rJ2E

¶49

Asst. Hgtstt?
N,E7-I, H YE EN,.'}. EA i'

State Bank of India v. Ms.Parsi Rohini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ms.Parsi Rohini

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/s Surex Auto works versus Origo Finance Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Sree Krishna Tractors versus Punjab National Bank

Mr Thangellapally Gnaneshwar versus Shriram Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus Sri Muramalla Mahesh

State Bank of India versus Sri. Durgam Ramesh

Bank of Baroda versus Sri Buddha Engineering and Constructions Private Limited