Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S.Balaji Enterprises

DRT15 Nov 2022OA/130/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the recovery application. The applicant bank established its claim through documentary evidence as the defendant remained absent. The court ordered payment of the principal sum, accrued interest, and costs, along with a recovery certificate and authority to proceed against mortgaged/hypothecated properties.

What did the court decide?

Payment of principal sums of Rs. 28,94,167/- and Rs. 1,79,606/- with respective interest rates; entitlement to recover from mortgaged properties; costs of the application.

State Bank of India versus M/S.Balaji Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 15rH DAy OF NOVEMBER,2022

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.13O ol 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC commuter amenity centre, Bus terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Balaji Enterprises, Rep by its Proprietor, Sri Kaki Gurunadham, S/o china Guravaiah, Sy.No.283, Pitchatur village, Pitchatur post and mandal, Chittoor district - 577 S4t.

¶9

Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendant

Sri C. Prabhakar

Exparte

ORDER

fu.nk^{filed the present OA against Defendants} for i,"'^. tota'l^.Su'm of Rs.3O,73,773/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs nd Seven hundred and Seventy three n of Rs.28,94,167/- under Loan A/c.

¶17

(oA.no.130/2022)

¶18

No.38464107003 together with further interest @ 10.25% p.a with monthly rests and a sum of Rs.1,79,606/_ under loan A/c. No.39603564771 together with further interest @ 9.85o/o p.awith monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated property and mortgaged properties as described in the schedule ..I & II,, to OA.

¶19

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that the defendant is a proprietary concern represented by its proprietor Sri Kaki Gurunadham avaired cash credit roan of Rs.23.00 lakhs through retter of arrangement dated L7.o5.2org. To secure due repayment of aforesaid cash credit loan, the defendant executed agreement of roan cum hypothecation dated 17.05.2079 and created equitable mortgage on 14.05.2019 by way of deposit of sale deed no.t374/2016 in respect of item no.1 of OA schedule property, sale deed no.1587/20r6 in respect of item no.2 of oA schedure and settlement deed no.1375/2016 in respect of item no.3 of OA schedule property-Il. After availing the loan facility, the defendant failed to compry the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA and issued regar notice

¶20

te{ 08.04.2022. In"sffte of several requests and demands, the defehdant pid..1ot ctear th'e\utstanding. Hence this OA. fl^{15NovW *}

¶21

¶22

set exparte on 06.L0.2022.

¶23

¶24

(OA.no. r30/2022)

¶25

Shri Satya Prasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A,1 to A.13.

¶26

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

The defendant was caled absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.13. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendant and hence the Applicant Bank is entifled to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶30

he present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶31

TF Nflfffilf.nt^{rs\itiaote to pay to the Appticant Bank} a total three

¶32

.Rs.3O,73,7ft&;f^{tnrO""s Thirty Lakhs Seventy} tft-rr"rqffi hundred and Seventy three only) i.e., a --:?7Ep:g

¶33

(OA.no.t3O/20221

¶34

sum of Rs.28,94,167l- under Loan A/c. No.3g464107003 together with further interest @ 10.25olo p.a and a sum of Rs.t,79,606/_ under loan A/c. No.3960356477L together with further interest @ 9.85o/o p.a from date of application till realization.

¶35

i) The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated and mortgaged properties as described in schedule "I & II" to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶40

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶41

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed bV-!e^r, -corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, grr tqf\tie.15tl..day of Nov., 2o2i)

¶42

sdl-
15 Nlu ?w
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
TRUE COPY
,sry o N)Y\ot"
'asst.Wxrar ftfr, )
r:p?.t, HycERAttA*' | ,,/

State Bank of India v. M/S.Balaji Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S.Balaji Enterprises

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

Shri Sarabhai Nathabhai Budheliya versus Canara Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Malkeet Singh

State Bank of India versus Shri Jatinder Kumar

State Bank of India versus Y Siva Shankar Reddy

Canara Bank versus Ms Himalaya Kirana Rice Oil Merchant

Jayeshbhai Gaurishankar Bhogayata and Anr. versus Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Limited