Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ms Shanthi Domestic Solutions

DRT19 Jan 2023OA/112/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, disposed of an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues. Finding the bank's claim substantiated by evidence and documents, the Tribunal held the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the principal amount along with interest and costs, while allowing sale of hypothecated movables.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.49,20,705/-; application for sale of hypothecated movables and costs allowed; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Ms Shanthi Domestic Solutions — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY,2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND,^{PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

OA.No.112 ot 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of^India, Stressed Assets^{RecoveryBranch,} 2nd floor, TSRTC^{bus Terminalcomplex} (Commuter Amenity^{Centre),Koti,} Hyderabad.

¶7

Represented^{bY its Chief Manager}

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s, Shanthi^{Domestic Solutions,} RePresented^{bY its ProPrietor,} H. No.2-88,^{BehindGramPanchaYat} Narmetta,^{MalkaPetaNarmetta,} Jangaonmandal,^Janagaon distiict- 506^{175. TelanganaState'}

¶11

Sri B.^{Yakub, major,ProPrietor} of M/s'^{ShanthiDomesticSolutions'} H.No.2-88,^{BehindGramPanchaYat} Narmetta,^{MalkaPetaNarmetta,} Jangaonmandal,^Janagaon distiict-^{506 175. TelanganaState'}

¶12

Defendants

¶13

Counsel for^thePl -rr::a:.... P.V. Satyanarayana For the APPlicant rte ti? For the^Defendan6qlN E r\ ,: 19^lru 'rn I %'-tt#

¶14

lOA.No.Lrz/2022],

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.49,2O,7O5l- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Twenty thousand Seven hundred and Five only) i.e., a sum of Rs.31,44,589/- in respect of CC loan with interest @ 11.5olo; a sum of Rs.13,0,475/- underterm loan with interest @ 11.5olo and a sum of Rs.4,75,641/- with interest @ 7.Bo/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶17

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.2 being proprietor of 1st defendant availed cash credit loan of Rs.30.00 lakhs, term loan limit of Rs.11.50 lakhs on 03,01.2020 and GECL loan of Rs.4.55 lakhs on 1.6.2020. To secure due repayment of above loans, the defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 03.01.2020. Defendants 1 & 2 executed necessary security loan documents and to secure the repayment of outstanding liability, the defendants also executed supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 01.06.2020. After avai loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the te nce the applicant bank was constrained to and issued legal notice on : t9 JAt, zffa : \J6^ -9 %,*t'#

¶18

(OA.No.11212022)

¶19

3L.03.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶20

Defendants were called absent set exparte on 29.09.2022.

¶21

4' shri Govind Raju, Manager of the Appricant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1to A.9.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

The defendants were cailed absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, offlcial of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.g. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their claim made in the Ot_iS..aj9st.-the.Defendants and hence the n'[he'A w'[h

¶26

il::",::"::: :::::#wry"de ,c" :"

¶27

l; 19 ;rn '* -;))

¶28

In the resutt, the preseg!$Sfaailory9{e.{$/osts, as under: s;ffirE

¶29

(oA.No.112l2022)

¶30

The Defendants 1 & 2 are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.49,2O,7OS/_ (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Twenty thousand Seven hundred and Five only) i.e., a sum of Rs.31,44,599/- in respect of CC loan with interest @ 11.5olo; a sum of Rs.L3,0,475/- under term loan with interest @ 11.5olo and a sum of Rs.4,75,64L/_ with interest @ 7.g%o p.afrom date of filing of OA till realization.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶37

(Dictated
by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open
)
d. €-{r
k sd.

¶38

sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFF!CER
TRUE COPY
12
o /J (),.-- -.nf,.,- -u-.-'
" -..1*,,Frr* oert, avoeneaad. r ltl .,,' c) /lf orf > ,j

State Bank of India v. Ms Shanthi Domestic Solutions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ms Shanthi Domestic Solutions

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

Bank of India versus M/s Shree Mahadev Ji Rice Mill Pvt.Ltd and Others

Ms Pradeed Ishwarlal Patel through proprietor Pradeep Ishwarlal Patel versus Canara Bank

Rana Oil Industries versus Union Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Harkanwal Singh

Canara Bank versus Naib Singh

Nirmal Gupta versus Bank of Baroda