Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri.Taraka Rama Industries

DRT19 Jul 2023OA/139/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Origin Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of loans, the Tribunal examined documents and held the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding dues with interest and costs. The OA was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability imposed on defendants to pay Rs.92,30,636/- with interest @ 10.65% p.a. Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged and other properties.

State Bank of India versus Sri.Taraka Rama Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶3

OA.No.139 of 2023

¶4

Between :

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Bus terminal complex Commuter Amenity Centre, Koti, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sri Taraka Rama Ind ustries, Represented by its pa rtners, Smt Lingampalli Vijaya Lakshmi, Female, major, and Sri Lingampally Pavan Kalyan, Male, Major, Regd office at 4-120, Near Jangan "X" roads, Gandhinagar, suryapet, Nalgonda district - 508 213.

¶9

Smt Lingampalli Vijaya Lakshmi, w/o Sri Ramulu, female, major, partner of Sri Taraka rama Industries, H.no.1-46, Near Jangan "X" roads, Gandhinagar, Suryapet, Nalgonda district - 508 213.

¶10

? Sri Lingampally Pavan Kalyan, S/o Sri Ramulu, male, major, Partner of Sri Taraka Rama Industries, H.No.1-46, Near Jangan "X" roads,

¶11

(OA.No.139/2023)

¶12

Gandhinagar, Suryapet, Nalgonda district - 508 213.

¶13

Defendants

¶14

Counsel for the parties:

¶15

For the Applicant

¶16

For the Defenda nts

¶17

Sri P.V. Satya na raya na Expa rte

¶18

ORDER

¶19

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.92,3O,636,/- (Rupees Ninety Two lakhs Thirty thousand Six hundred and thirty six only) i.e., a sum of Rs.33,16,136/_ under cash credit ; a sum of Rs.55,40,705/_ under term loan and a sum of Rs.3,73,795/_ under FITL loan respectively with interest @ 10.65o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application tiil the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.2 and 3 are partners of defendant no.1 firm who availed cash credit loan of Rs.30. and term loan of Rs.49.00 lakhs totaling Rs.79.00 lakhs Defendants2&3stood as guarantors for due r@a liability and executed :^{1s rr 7$n} 2 o -d-) h" tl.w,e-$ 'W;'R

¶21

(OA.No.139/2023)

¶22

necessary security loan documents. To secure repayment of outstanding liability, the defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation and guarantee agreement dated 05.09.2020. The defendant no.2 deposited the title deeds bearing regd sale deed no.790 of 1993 dated 23.04.1993 relating to OA schedule property with an intention to create an equitable mortgage. Subsequently defendants availed FITL loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs on 01,10.2021 and defendants 2 & 3 also stood as guarantors for due repayment of outstanding liability. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA and issued notice dated 27.03.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶23

Defendants were called absent and set exparte on 30.06.2023.

¶24

Sri A.G. Satya Prasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A,1to A, 17.

¶25

Heard the L,d. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

(OA. No.139/2023)

¶27

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is 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 who is the official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.17. 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.

¶29

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

¶30

The Defendants No.1 to 3 are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.92,30,636/- (Rupees Ninety Two lakhs Thirty thousand Six hundred and thirty six only) i.e., a sum of Rs.33,16,136/- under cash credit;a sum of Rs.55,40,705/- under term loan and a sum of Rs.3,73,795l- under FITL loan respectively with interest @ 10.65olo p.a from date of ,a-' ... -j:'-'_:-:: 6- _

¶31

application 1'lll, ,i.

¶32

it "flflm ?
ifuw#

¶33

(oA.No.139/2023)

¶34

i) The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of its dues.

¶35

ii) The applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶39

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of luly, 2023)

¶41

sd/-

¶42

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

*
19 Jllt 2tr9 r
}

¶44

TR'UE.COPY ."+:l'uffi!''

State Bank of India v. Sri.Taraka Rama Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri.Taraka Rama Industries

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

M/S. Mallikarjuna Purified Water Plant, versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus M/S. Karigar Furnitures

Bank of India versus Mr. Gali Vijaya Krishna

State Bank of India versus M S Kavyasri Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Mr . Ramesh Madhuri

State Bank of India versus Rama Krishna Industries