Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Nagendra Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

DRT1 Dec 2023OA/16/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal admitted the bank's original application for recovery of dues. The court found the defendants' plea of suppression of facts unsubstantiated as no documents were produced to back it up, holding the bank entitled to the claimed amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Bank granted recovery of Rs.1,52,55,423.27 with 9.90% p.a. interest and costs; repossessibility of debt confirmed.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Nagendra Hotels… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.16 oJ 2022

¶4

Between :

¶5

State Bank of India, SARB-II, ChikkadpaIy, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Nagendra Hotels pvt Ltd., Represented by its Managing Directors, Regd office at

¶9

H. N.o. 1 -31-885, Kannajiguda,

¶10

l notra nagar, Old Bowenpally, Hyderabad, TS - 5OO OO9.

¶11

Mr. Ch. Mukesh, l/.o Yrt^{Pradohakar, aged28 years,} R/o flat no.303, A block, Green Wood Residency, Secunderabad - 5OO O1O.

¶12

Mrs. DhakshayaniKuruba, w/o Mr. K. Somashekar,

¶13

gO,9a S0^years, R/o ftat no.303, A block, Green wood Residency, Secunderabad - 5OO O1O Defendants

¶14

¶15

a * 0101.tnn ,t s,-,r'.*-ry

¶16

(oA.No.1612022)

¶17

Counsel for the^pa rties:

¶18

For the Applicant Sri A.M. Kiran Kumar For defendant No.1&2 Sri Masai Ramesh Defendant No.3 Sri Murali Krish na

¶19

ORDER

¶20

1' The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,52,55,423.21ps (Rupees One Crore Fifty Two lakhs Fifty five thousand Four hundred twenty three and paise twenty seven only) with future interest @ 9.90olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till realization.

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant no.1 is a company represented by its directors i.e., defendant no.2 and Mrs. panjala priyanka, Mr. Padma nabhu nisrava nkuma r avaired credit facirities. The defendants avaired cash credit rimit of Rs.10.00 rakhs ancr term roan of Rs.g0.00 lakhs vide retter of arrangement on 31.10.201g. The rimits were enhanced by Rs.20.00 lakhs on 10.06.2020. Defendants 2 & 3 stood as guarantors and executed guarantee agreement on 10.06.2020. To secgr_er4[Qftingcapital & FITL facilities of Rs.23.00 f'-.r.fri ::filt\ lakhs the de fgfrdanfpdantt ilxecutt#ptiE or arrangement, supptementat asreement "lil$; -.r,.n ffiotn"..#"ii"r Rs.143.00 rakhs. rn June i; i rI1^01a$ fra z ,.^* i\F i. .:I'''^'

¶22

lOA.No.t6/2022)

¶23

2021 the rimits were enhanced with a rimit of Rs.1g.00 rakhs on 79.06.202L.

¶24

It is submitted by the Appricant bank that the Defendants having availed the said loan facilities failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on 25.10.2021. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants isRs.1,52,55,423.27ps (Rupees One Crore Fifty Two lakhs Fifty five thousand Four hundred twenty three and paise twenty seven only) with future interest @ 9.90olo p.a with monthly rests from date of applicationtill realization. Hence the OA.

¶25

2' The Defendants No.1 and 2fired written statement and defendant no.3 adopted the same. The defendants contended that the appricant,s claim is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that Appricant bank suppressed the facts of oA and not fired the material papers pertaining to the alleged claim. The defendants denied all the averments made in the OA.

¶26

The Applicant Bank in g1@q evidence affidavit duly ' ,ln, ' sworn in by SriS. Rajendra AW.1 and through him

¶27

i,:

¶28

(oA.No.1612022)

¶29

marked 23 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.23. Defendant no.2Shri Ch. Mukesh examined himself as DW.1 and did not file any documents.

¶30

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶31

Applicant counsel filed written arguments. No arguments submitted by

¶32

the defendants.

¶33

Now, the points that arise for consideration a re: i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶34

ii) To what relief ?

¶35

Point No.i):

¶36

There is no dispute about the fact that the defendants have availed loan from the applicant bank and executed necessary documents in favour of the Applicant bank.

¶37

¶38

AW.1 who is the Manager of the Applicant Bank, in his evidence clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants No.1 to 3 to pay the I exhibited Ex.A.1 to A.23. AW.1 is not cross the The defendants have not

¶39

(oA.No.t6/2022)

¶40

disputed the craim made in the oA but their contention is that the Applicant bank suppressed the material facts but no material document is placed by them to substantiate the said contention. Moreover a perusal of the documents filed by the Applicant Bank clearly indicates that they are executed by the defendants in the normal course of transactions. Even though the defendant no.2 examined himself as DW.1, his evidence is no way helpful to him. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenabre. Hence the appricant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendants No.1 to 3. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants No.1 to 3.

¶41

Point No.ii)

¶42

In the result, the present original application is a[owed with costs as under:

¶43

The Defendants No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to Applicant Bank a total sum Rs.1,S2,SS,423.Z7ps (Rupees One Crore Fifty Two takhs Fifty five thousand Four hundred twenty three and paise with future interest @ 9.90% p.afrom date of

¶44

(oA.No.t6/2022)

¶45

1C. the Applicant Bank is atso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards rearization of the debt due.

¶46

11' The Appricant Bank is entitred to the costs of the oA.

¶47

L2, The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶48

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶49

74' communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶50

(Dictated to the P'A', transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the l't day of Dec,2023)

¶51

sd/ -

¶52

(G. GOP|CHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶53

dl:ffiryfu Assf. Regisfrar DRT.I, HYOTRASAfi.

¶54

State Bank of India v. M/S. Nagendra Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Nagendra Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

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. Srinivasa Communications and Services

State Bank of India versus M/S.Varalaxmi Electronics and Enterprises

State Bank of India versus M S Sai Radheshyam Filling Station

Nandini Industries India Pvt. Ltd. and Others versus State Bank of India

Smt Gorty Sai Lakshmi versus Dcb Bank Limited

Indian Bank versus Pulicheri Roja Rani Enterprises