Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri New Tech Readymix Concrete Private Limited

DRT12 Oct 2023OA/126/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Originating Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of loan dues aggregating Rs. 2.91 crores from the Defendant company and its directors/guarantors, holding the bank entitled to the claim with future interest.

What did the court decide?

Directed Defendants to pay total sum of Rs. 2,91,14,565/ along with future interest; Applicant can proceed against mortgaged/hypothecated properties and personal properties of Defendants 2 to 5.

State Bank of India versus Sri New Tech Readymix… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs rHE 12rH DAy oF ocroBER, 2oz3

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER OA.No.t26 of ZOZ2

¶3

Between:

¶4

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-II, SARB-II, Opp Sandhya Theatre, RTC cross roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, Telangana State. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Sri New Tech Readymix Concrete Private Limited,

¶8

Represented by its Directors - the Defendantsl&2herein

¶9

3'd floor, Bth cross, Old no.45A,

¶10

5th cross, Chikkamaranahalli, Mathikere, Bangalore - 560 045. Karnataka State.

¶11

And also at

¶12

Survey No. 103, Gorivegere village, Katamnallur gate, Kannamangala Post, Bangalore - 560 067, Karnataka State.

¶13

2, Sri Akula Subhash Chandra Bose s/o Sri Akula Narayana,

¶14

aged about 39 years, occ: business and director of 1tt defendant company, 3'd floor, Bth cross, Old no.45A,

¶15

5th cross, Chikkamaranahalli,

¶16

lO^A>No.1,26 /20221

¶17

Mathikere, Bangalore - 560 045. Karnataka State.

¶18

And also at

¶19

H.No.2Bl759-C2, NGOs colony, Noonepally, Nandyal town and Mandal, Kurnool dist- 518 502.

¶20

Sri Akula Babu Rajendra prasad, s/o Sri Akula Narayana, aged about 37 years, occ:business and director of 1't defendant company, 3'd floor, Bth cross, Old no.45A, 5'n cross, Chikkamaranahalli, Mathikere, Bangalore - 560 045. Karnataka State.

¶21

And also at

¶22

H.No.2Bl759-C2, NGOs colony, Noonepally, Nandyal town and Mandal, Kurnool dtst- 518 502.

¶23

Sri Akula Narayana, s/o Sri A. Subbarayudu, aged about 67 years, occ: business, H.No,2Bl759-C2, NGOs colony, Noonepally, Nandyal town and Mandal, Kurnool dist- 518 502.

¶24

Smt Akula Nagalakshmma @ A. Nagalaxmamma, aged about 57 yrs, Occ: business, H.No.2Bl759-C2, NGOs colony, Noonepally, Nandyal town and Defe nd a nts Mandal, Kurnool dist_ 518 y. .. Counsel for the iii.' For the Applicant bha ka r Sarma For the Defendants 'i 2 OCI Z023sri y Kumar

¶25

(OA>No.12612022)

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2r911141565/- (Rupees Two Crores Ninety One Lakhs Fourteen thousand Five hundred and Sixty five only) i.e.,

¶28

a) A sum of Rs. 1,88,80,4I4/- under ABL-I account with interest @ 10.95o/o p.a with monthly rests;

¶29

b) A sum of Rs.98,31,549/- under"ABL-II account with interest @ 10.95olo p.a with monthly rests;

¶30

c) A sum of Rs.4,02,602/- under FITL account with interest @ 7o/o p.a with monthly rests;

¶31

from date of apprication tiil the date of finar rearization and in default for sale of mortgaged properties and hypothecated movables as described in the schedules^.,A to E,, to OA.

¶32

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states

¶33

that the defendant No.1 is a company situated at Bangarore and defendants 2 & 3 are directors of 1't defendant company. Defendants 2 & 3 are sons of defendants 4 & 5. Defendant no.1 company avaired Rs.2.50 crores under SBI Asset'Aackeii against the security

¶34

: ;'i

¶35

of immovable properties more fufly. oescrioJu\tr the schedure to oA. *

¶36

1? 0tT 20n

¶37

(OA>No.12612022)

¶38

To secure due repayment of ABL of Rs.2.50 crores, the defendants 1 to 3 executed agreement of loan, agreement of hypothecation of goods and assets, letter of undertaking, letter_cu m_ag reement etc. Defendants 2 to 4 and Sri A. Lakshmana Reddy stood as guarantors and guaranteed the due repayment vide deed of guarantee on 19'08'2015' The defendant no.1 company avaired additionar ABL-2 0f Rs.1 crore and executed necessary documents. Subsequently the defendants avaired cash credit roan of Rs.35.oo rakhs and funded interest term loan of Rs.5.51 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 26,07.2079. To secure due repayment of overall loan facilities of Rs.298.51 lakhs, the defendant no.1 company represented by defendants 2 & 3 executed supplemental agreement of loan cum Hypothecation (SME-4) and defendants 2 to 5 guaranteed the due repayment vide deed of guarantee dated 26.07.201g. Defendant no.4 created equitabre mortgage on 19.08.2015 and extended on 26,07.2019 over his immovable properties more fully described in schedule of properties "A to c,,to oA. Defendant no.5 created equitable mortgage on 20.04,2017 and extended on 26.O7.2O1g over his immovable property more fully described in schedule of property ,.D,,to OA. After availing the loan faqilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, .driee bank was constrained to //'":;.' classify the account E$',6tpe o issued legal notice '! .a, 12 c/CT MJ ii

¶39

(OA>No.12612022)

¶40

dated 11.02.2021. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence the OA,

¶41

Shri T, Vijay Kumar filed vakalath for defendants but not filed Written

¶42

statement. Hence the right of filing of WS was forfeited on 13.06.2023.

¶43

Sri A. Mark, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as

¶44

AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.71.

¶45

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

counsel for defendants fired vakarath but not fired ws. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex,A1 to A.71. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their

¶49

Bank is entitled to recover'the-craim made 4\e oa with future interest and -^-r ^^^!^ costs. :' '.\ \\ 'i 12 ocl 2m ; 5 .., '') ' ri"' "^'r. -^{','Y;li i'.ri\i'.} .,1, .. ;'' .--tJ'..) :.^' .^jt' i= ' ,L-;--'-

¶50

(OA>No.12612022)

¶51

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

¶52

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Applicant Bank a total sum Rs.2,91,14,565/- (Rupees Two Crores Nanety One Lakhs Fourteen thousand Five hundred and Sixty five only) i.e., a) A sum of Rs.1,BB,B0,4L4/- under ABL-I account with interest @ 10.95olo p.a;

¶53

b) A sum of Rs.98,31,549/- under ABL-II account with interest @ 10.95olo p.a less a sum of Rs.4O.OO lakhs paid on OL.O9.2O24 RS,2O.OO lakhs paid on O2.O9.2O22 and Rs,2O.OO lakhs paid on 14.09.2022 in totat a sum of Rs.SO.OO lakhs which was paid subsequent to filing of OA;

¶54

c) A sum of Rs,4,02,602/- under FITL account with interest @ 7olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization.

¶55

The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged properties and hypothecated movables as described in schedules ',A to E" to OA.

¶56

the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 5 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards rea lization of due.

¶57

The Applicant Bank is

¶58

,,,j 12 ItT ttZJ
\i- --*==' ail{ L

¶59

(OA>No.t26/20221

¶60

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

¶61

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶62

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶63

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of Oct, 2023)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

T'RUE COPY
,-*,ffi11,,

State Bank of India v. Sri New Tech Readymix Concrete Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri New Tech Readymix Concrete Private Limited

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

State Bank of India versus M/S. Flagsquare Infracon Pvt. Ltd.

Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank versus Sri. Mamilla Damodar Yadav

Ms Sri Radhakrishna Agro Industries versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Sri Mohan Babu Chepuri

Bank of India versus M/S. Chetan Plastic Industries

Union Bank of India, versus Smt. Karanam Ramulamma