Allowed

State Bank of India v. Rama Krishna Industries

DRT20 Jul 2023OA/156/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an OA filed by State Bank of India for recovery of loan dues along with interest and costs from the borrowers and guarantor, directing them to pay the total amount jointly and severally and authorizing the bank to proceed against mortgaged and other properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.22,86,600/- with interest. Authority given to proceed against mortgaged property and properties of defendants for realization.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS'THE 2OTH DAY OF JULY 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶3

OA.No.156 OF ZO23

¶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 Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Rama Krish na Industries,
Represented by its proprietor
Sri Lingampally pavan kalyan,
s/o Sri Ramulu, major, male,
R/o H.No.1-46, Near Jangan ,'X,,
Roads, Gandhinagar, Suryapet,
Nalgonda district - 508 213.
2. Sri Lingampally pavan Kumar,
s/o Sri Ramulu, Major, Male,
R/o H.No.1-46, Near Jangan ',X,,
Roads, Gandhinagar, Suryapet,
Nalgonda district - 5OB 213.
3. Smt Lingampalli Vijaya Lakshmi, :. .,. _id'.
w/o Sri Ramulu, Ui.;or, femate,,.,"' .-*-;r-"S$.)<br>R/o H.No.1-46, Near Janoan "Xt-; j,{ 'a}<br>Roads, Gandhinagar, Sur-Vapef i+
Nalgonda district - 5OB it'73.'
Defenda nts
z o JlJL e, ;
s s:
,.#a-r&
'Q;;;r,iP

¶8

(OA. No.1s6/2023)

¶9

Counsel for the Parties:

¶10

For the Applicantthe Applicant

¶11

For the Applicantthe Applicant Sri P.V. Satya na raya na For the Defendants Expa rte

¶12

ORDER

¶13

1' The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.22,g616oor/_ (Rupees Twenty two Lakhs Eighty Six thousand Six hundred only) i.e., a sum of Rs.16,33,229/- for CC loan limit with interest @ 14.25o/o p.a with monthly rests; a sum of Rs.2,90,851/_ in respect of GECL loan limit with future interest @ 10.650lo p.a and a sum of Rs.3,62,520/_ for FITL limit with future interest @ 10.65o/o p.a with monthry rests from date oF application till the date oF realization and in default for sale of immovable mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶14

) As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants No.1 to 3 availed cash credit of Rs.14.25 lakhs and term loan limit of Rs.9.50 lakhs respectively on 28.O4.2016. I Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor for due repayment of outstanding necessary security loan 28.04.2OL6. To secure

¶15

(OA. No.155/2023)

¶16

due repayment of outstanding liability the defendants 1 & 2 executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 28.04.20t6. Defendant no.3 executed guarantee agreement dated 28.O4.2016. The defendants 1to 3 renewed the aforesaid limits vide letter of arrangement dated 03.08.2019. 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 legal notice dated 21.03.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶17

Defendants were called absent and set exparte on 30.06.2023.

¶18

Sri A.G. Satyaprasad, Manager oF the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.14.

¶19

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶20

6, 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?

¶21

The defendants wefle , ca2il ?Bt?Af,"d ex pa rte. To su bstantiate the case oF the o is the official of the

¶22

(oA.No.1s6/2023)

¶23

Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.14. 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.

¶24

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

¶25

The Defendants No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.22,86,6O0/- (Rupees Twenty two Lakhs Eighty Six thousand Six hundred only) i.e., a sum of Rs.16,33,229/- for CC loan limit with interest @ 74.25o/o p.a; a sum of Rs.2,90,851/- in respect of GECL loan limit with future interest @ 10.650lo p.a and a sum of Rs.3,62,520/- for FITL limit with future interest @ 10.650lo p.a from date of application till the date of realization till the date of realization.

¶26

i) The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged immovable property as described .in the schedule to OA towards .:-- ..

¶27

realization of its dues. ,. ":.,
a-- -. | .. tt
, :, .
': ' i
.a ., i'
2 0 JltL iir:] rl
.,:.'.,..1.:
-. . 4
;, ,...,,

¶28

(oA.No.1s612023)

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶33

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶34

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2Oth day of July, 2023)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Rama Krishna Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Rama Krishna 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

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Sri.Taraka Rama Industries

State Bank of India versus Mr . Ramesh Madhuri

State Bank of India versus M S Kavyasri Enterprises

K Raghuram Reddy versus Vijaya Bank

Palthya Kalpana versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Smt. Potta Balamani