Allowed

State Bank of India v. Madhu

DRT9 Jan 2023OA/166/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Originating Application filed by State Bank of India against Sri Bojja Madhu for recovery of a term loan. The Defendant, absent ex parte, failed to reimburse the outstanding amount. The court held the bank established its claim and awarded recovery with interest.

What did the court decide?

The Defendant is ordered to pay Rs.25,50,091 plus future interest and costs; Recovery Certificate issued; the Bank is authorized to proceed against hypothecated assets.

State Bank of India versus Madhu — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.166 OF 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery branch-II, 1-B-563/1, Opp: Sandhya Theatre, RTC cross roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad-20. Represented by its chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sri Bojja Madhu, s/o Parvathalu, Prop; M/s. Kanakadurga Works & Suppliers, D.No.22, Chowdarpally, Bomraspet, Mahabubnagar district.

¶9

And

¶10

R/o H. No.2-26, Keshurajupalli village, Tipparthimandal, Nalgonda district - SOB 247.

¶11

Defendant

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

For

Sri C. Prabhakar

Expa rte

dii IP * ORDER osrAlr?on ; ,,3^dl. rhe Appr( Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for 'llah,e,:*fl=rq) total sum of Rs.26,5O,Ogt/(Rupees Twenty Six khs Fifty thousand and Ninety one only) with further interest

¶17

(oA.No.166/2022)

¶18

@ 9'65% p.awith monthry rests from date of apprication tiil the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Appricant Bank states that the defendant was carrying on business of centringmaterial under the name and style of^{.'Kanakadurga} Works & Suppliers,, availed term loan of Rs.24.00 rakhs on 26.06.2018. To secure due repayment of aforesaid loan, the defendant executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 26.06.201g. The defendant hypothecated all its movable property more fully described in the schedule to oA. After avairing the roan facirity, the defendant Faired to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA and issued legal notice on 21.t2.2020' Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶20

Defendant was called absent set exparte on 16.09.2022.

¶21

the Applicant Bank examined himself documents, which are marked as "Jo,['ito$:o for the Applicant Bank.

¶22

(oA. No.166/2022 )

¶23

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Appllcant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant as prayed for?

¶24

The defendant was 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.A1 to A.4. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendant and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶25

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

¶26

The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.25,50,091/- (Rupees Twenty Six lakhs Fifty thousand and Ninety one only) with further interest @ 9.65% p.afrom lication till rea lization.

¶27

//6
IP
, ,r0i) nk is entitled to proceed against hypothecated
..1 .- escribed in the schedule to OA towards realization
_.- :r"- '
'\1,i

¶28

(0A.No 166/2022)

¶29

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entiued to proceed against the person

¶30

and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶31

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

¶32

iv) The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the

¶33

date of receipt of order.

¶34

10, Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶36

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by_her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the^gth day of lan., 2023)

¶37

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶38

TRUE COPY
,rf;'*WrLq

State Bank of India v. Madhu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Madhu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus Vivek Govind Rao

Hdfc Bank versus Bipin Bihari

Hdfc Bank versus Shailesh Yadav

State Bank of India versus Prudvi Raj

State Bank of India versus Anjaiah

State Bank of India versus Venugopal