Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Ganapathi Bricks

DRT8 Dec 2023OA/145/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Debt Recovery Tribunal order, the court adjudicated an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a loan facility against a proprietorship firm and its proprietor. The court found in favor of the bank, allowing recovery of the principal and interest along with costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.25,70,690/- with interest; Bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated and other properties; Cost memo to be filed.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ganapathi Bricks — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 8rH DAy oF DECEMBER, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: sRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.145 of 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Asset Recovery Management Branch (SAR^B-II), 1_B_563/1, 1'r floor, t-lpp Sandhya theatre, RTC cross Roads, Chikkadpaily, Hyderabad.

¶6

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Ganapathi Bricks. l-.qi::"l,:o^{by irs proprietor,} smtvelchala Karuna, \N/o .v. Bucha Rao, iemale, Aged 40 years, occ: business, Sultanabad, peddapalli. P9:ult^{Nagar, Karimnasar} District - 505 186.

¶10

SmtVelcha la Karu na, w/o V. _Bucha Rao, iemale, aged 40 years, occ: business,

¶11

H. No.2- 1 1/1, KattaDaili. Sultanabad mandal. Kattnapalli, Karimnagar_505 525.

¶12

Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the parties:

For the Applicant

Smt B. RamanaKumari

For the Defendants

rte
; oBoE[zon :
**9
,, p+. rli

¶18

(oA, Mo.14sl2023 )

¶19

ORDER

¶20

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.25,70,690/_ (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Seventy thousand Six hundred and Ninety onty) i.e., a sum of Rs.10,93,228l_ + 14,77 ,462/_ with current and future interest @ L2,40o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern and defendant no.2 is its sole proprietor availed cash credit facility with a limit of Rs.9.50 lakhs and term loan facility of Rs.14.25 lakhs aggregating to a sum of Rs.23.75 lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 02.11. 202L. To secure the repayment of loan facilities, the defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation in favour of Applicant Bank on 02.1t.2021. The term loan is to be repaid in 57 equated monthly installments of Rs.31,527/_ each and last installments of Rs.L2,857/- commencing from 01.01.2022. After availing the loan facirities, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the applica nt bank was constrained to classify the account as :r"l'r::'r " '-\ NPA and issued -'-'' legal 4otice, dated.24'.b2.2023. Inspite of several

¶22

. t
":*,.
ii i.. 'r ir .-.
;,
Irr-
,, I
" ,t
) -,1i. i,
'. r-];f
'.' ,, :: ;l
. ,i
,

¶23

(OA.Mo.14slz023)

¶24

requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding, Hence this OA.

¶25

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 211L.2023.

¶26

Shri O. Muralidhar, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.9.

¶27

5, Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶28

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?

¶29

Defendants called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.Al to A.9, 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 enti recover the claim made in the OA with

¶30

B. In the

¶31

with costs, as u nder:

¶32

' ').

¶33

(oA.Mo.14sl2023)

¶34

The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^{pay to the Applicant} Bank a total sum of Rs.25,7O,690/-^(Rupees Twenty^{Five Lakhs} Seventy thousand Six hundred and Ninety only) i.e', a^{sum of} Rs.10,93,228/- + 14,77,462/- with current and future interest @ L2.40o/o p.afrom date of filing of OA till realization.

¶35

i) The Applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the hypothecated property as described in the schedule 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 No.2 and^properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due,

¶37

iii) The Applicant Bank is entitled 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

-P-4,.-transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Dec.,2023)

¶42

sdl-

¶43

(G. GOPICHAND) PRES!DING OFFICER

¶44

CL,iffYL
*i;:|,f:til-F ,-4
",.n n ltAll.

State Bank of India v. M/S. Ganapathi Bricks

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Ganapathi Bricks

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

State Bank of India versus Syed Muzaffer Hussain

K Ramvikas versus Gic Housing Finance Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S.Vallabh Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. (Arcil) versus M/S. Maqdoom Moghny Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

J R Traders versus State Bank of India

M S Tudor Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. versus Ifci Limited