Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri .Kasula Mahesh

DRT11 Nov 2022OA/148/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal adjudicated an Order of Application filed by the State Bank of India against two borrowers for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 74.15 lakhs from cash credit and term loans classified as NPA.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 74,15,221/- with future interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated assets and properties; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Sri .Kasula Mahesh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2022)

¶1

ACIN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE llrH DAy OF NOVEMBERT 2022

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.148 ot 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery branch, (SARB), 2nd floor, TSRTC bustand complex, Koti, Hyderabad.

¶6

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Sri Kasula Mahesh, s/o Sri Sadaiah,

¶10

aged major, occ: business and prop of M/s. Vijayalakshmi Traders & Jewellery, H.No.8-1-104/B, Gandhi chowk, Veenavanka road, Jammikunta, Karimnagar dist - 505 122.

¶11

And also at

¶12

H.No.1-BB, Gandhi chowk, College road, Jammikunta, Karimnagar dist - 505 122.

¶13

Sri Kiran Kumar Kasula, s/o Sadanandam, aged major, occ: business, H.No.8-1-104/B, Gagdhi chowk, Veenavanka rc /6r!(qltUnt&,.^{Ka ri m na ga r d ist.} 76\ g3 v* "A'.: 'lp ;fr ..-^^,._ -,:I"^ . !r\i Coqnsel for thij Parties: Forrhe lplriUtl4pnZ :ii : Sri G, Prabhakar Sarma ld"Defendants I S Exparte W,;:;ifl

Defendants

(oA. No.1a812022)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.74,J-i,22ll_ (Rupees Seventy four lakhs Fifteen thousand Two hundred and twenty one only) i,e., a sum of Rs.11,g6, l7O/- + Rs.51,28,416l_ under cash credit with interest @ I4.75o/o p.a with monthly rests and a sum of Rs.11,00,635/- under term loan with interest @ 12.50 o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated assets in schedure property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶18

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a proprietor carrying on business of gold & silver merchants in the name and style of M/s. Vijayalakshmi Traders &Jewellery availed working capital loan under pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana scheme. The defendant no.1 avaired cash credit roan of Rs.10.00 lakhs and executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation (SME2). Considering the request of defendant no.1, the applicant t"'.l'n loan or Rs'17.10 lakhs and cash credit or P*CS:IT;:. limits of Rs.23.75 lakhs) on 20.OZ.2OIB. To of said overall loan facilities, defendant no.1 t'"'f?^irbi Vtnn *fi",,: loan cum hypothecation. On 17.02 .202I, the revival letter acknowledging their liability.

¶19

(oA.No.148/2022)

¶20

Defendant no.1 availed cash credit loan of Rs.4S lakhs and executed necessary documents along with hypothecation of schedule mentioned hypothecated assets more fully described in schedule to OA. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the appllcant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA and issued legal notice on 29.04.2022.1nspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶21

Defendants were set exparte on 17.08.2022.

¶22

Shri Ch. RaghavenderRao, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.17 (except A.3),

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank

¶25

f;r^{the claim made in the oA against the Defendantsas}

¶26

,f{;ffif

¶27

/r.fraveoffi? 'f,o. , .l

¶28

c.:.,

¶29

?, 'i1illuw2

¶30

1. . The defendants called absent and set exparte. To substantiate

¶31

i.4* ,"ro WBrl$ and licant he exhibited Bank, AW.1, official relevant documents of the Applicant as Ex.A1 Bankto

¶32

(oA.No.148/2022)

¶33

A. 17 (except A.3). 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.

¶34

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

¶35

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total Rs.74,15,22L1- (Rupees Seventy four lakhs Fifteen thousand Two hundred and twenty one only) i.e., a sum of Rs.11,86,170/- + Rs.51,28,416l- under cash credit with interest @ 14.75o/o p.a and a sum of Rs.11,00,635/- under term loan with interest @ 12.50^o/o p.d from date of applicationtill realization.

¶36

i) The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated assets in schedule property as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

ii) .,4he.^Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person .s. 1t1

¶38

j &nd progi$rties of glefendants towards realization of the debt due, r,. 11irorl zoz ; entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶39

iii)^' I$e Applicant.^Br €;u:,'D

¶40

¶41

(oA.No.148/2022)

¶42

iv) The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of 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 pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of Nov.. 2022)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

TRUE^COPY n,"*ftffiil^yil,s

¶50

DRf.I,^HYDERABAD'

¶51

State Bank of India v. Sri .Kasula Mahesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri .Kasula Mahesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sharad Ramchandra Mhatre versus Bharat Cooperative Bank Mumbai Limited

Anoop Himanshu Roy versus Icici Bank Limited

Deepak So Shri Sureshrao Gadge versus Dcb Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus P Sarojini Devi

Icici Bank Limited versus Subhash Kumar and Other

Union Bank of India versus Mr P Satish Babu