Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Oom Narayani Traders

DRT18 Nov 2022OA/121/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed OA No.121 of 2022. The court held that the State Bank of India, represented by an examined witness and supporting documents, established its claim against the defendants and is entitled to recover the dues with interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.69,38,029/- with interest at 14.75% on cash credit and 11% on FITL loan; entitlement to sell mortgaged/hypothecated assets; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Oom Narayani Traders — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER,2022

¶2

PRESENT: sRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.121 of 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stre-ssed Assets Recovery branch, 2no floor, TSRTC Bus terminal complex (Commuter Amenity Centre), Koti, Hyderabad.

¶6

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

I. M/s, OomNarayani Traders, Rep by its proprietor Sri Taliyakula Venkata Ramana, major, H.No.11-4-73, CRG towers,

¶10

Plot no.301, Nehru nagar, Khammam - 507 02.

¶11

Sri Taliyakula Venkata Ramana, s/o Late Narasimha Rao, major, R/o H.No.11-4-73, CRG towers,

¶12

Plot no.301, Nehru nagar,

¶13

Khammam - 507 OO2.

¶14

Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the^parties:

¶16

Sri P.V. Satyanarayana

¶17

For the Dqfenglants

¶18

Exparte

¶19

.'.t';' ".. - 5: . .-..;
,i 4; -. ''./.'. .'.
{/ t- !J "o'
'', ORDER
/ * {.}
the present OA against Defendants for
of Rs.69,38'o29/- (Rupees Sixty Nine

¶20

(oA.No.121 of 2022)

¶21

lakhs thirty eight thousand and twenty nine only) with interest @ t4.75o/o p.a on Cash credit loan and @ 11olo p.a with monthly rests for FITL loan from date of filing of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property and hypothecation assets as described in the schedule^..A & 8,, to OA.

¶22

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that the defendant no.2 was the proprietor of 1st defendant who availed cash credit loan of Rs.50.00 lakhs on 06,11.201g and defendants 1 & 2 executed necessary security loan documents. To secure the repayment of outstanding liability, the defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 06.11.201g, Defendant no.1 deposited tifle deeds bearing regd sale deed No.9921 of 208 dated 06.09.201g an created equitable mortgage of OA schedule property. The defendants also availed FITL loan of Rs.4,20,754/- vide letter of arrangement dated 27.g.2020. After avairing the roan facirity, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA and issued legal notice on 26.03.2022. Inspite of severqr fequests and demands, the defendants did not crear the -,J^{r -?ii..,-..,.-} 'notitap-{i ns* fu iitu rh is oA. ../ \ ;* !_' ik -- rrriu in.r1

¶23

(OA.No.121 of 2022)

¶24

Shri Madhav rao, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.12.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶27

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶28

The defendants were called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, ofFicial of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to 4.t2. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has

¶29

established their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entifled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶30

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶31

ts are jointly and severally liable to pay to the

¶32

,...: Sixty Nine

¶33

¶34

' : latlR$ ffirty only) with }

¶35

(OA.No.121 of 2022)

¶36

interest @ 14.75o/o p.a on Cash credit loan and @ 11olo p.a for FITL loan from date of filing of OA till realization.

¶37

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the mortgaged property and hypothecated assets as described in the schedule "A & B" to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶38

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of Defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶39

iii) The Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the OA.

¶40

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

¶41

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶42

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶43

transcribed by her, corrected. signed and pronounced by me in the open
rflay of Nov., 2022)
//4 - $i$
// " ), |
=t
TRUE COPY
llilo 1 0t IJOl/ ?an sdl-
PRESIDING OFFICER
$sfu{)"
;rttlff*mr ,.:A </
t RlJ,, HvcERAeAD. ('yl '
4
V.

State Bank of India v. M/S. Oom Narayani Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Oom Narayani Traders

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Ramesh

M Muralidhara Kumar versus South Indian Bank

Ergo Foam versus Federal Bank

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Satbhani Marbles and Tiles and others

State Bank of India versus Esanya the Restaurant

Union Bank of India versus Bhanumatiben