Allowed

State Bank of India v. Prudvi Raj

DRT9 Jan 2023OA/168/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Departmental Tribunal allowed an Originating Application filed by State Bank of India against M/s. Purovi Soap Industries for recovery of Rs.30.23 lakhs along with interest. The court, on an ex-parte basis, allowed the bank's claim and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs.30.23 lakhs with interest; permission granted to proceed against hypothecated movables and defendant's properties; recovery certificate issued.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAT.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs THE grH DAy oF JANUARY,2o2z

¶2

PRESENT! sRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.168 OF 2OZ2

¶3

Between:

¶4

State Bank of India. Stressecl Assets Recovery branch_II. 1-8_563/1, Opp: Sandhya ll:1.:,^{RTC cross roads,} Lntkkadpally, Hyderabad_20. xepresented by its chief Nanager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

;ii:iiruffr^Tj[lrjr:, ffi 3:i:ig, T Yi;o;Ho^{r.'"" o} Navodaya Industrial ir ;::'."#i3fl#H"i,f,,7

¶8

And

¶9

3;l3ii;3J;,li,j?j,l,ijj,_ i,iJ,; o,

¶10

Defendant

¶11

Counsel for !h9 parties:

¶12

=H.s":ffi;',T\ , if,lirabhakar j o s JAlr zon :ll .tl/ oRDER i*. 1. :Sf..*i. a.unt rired the present oA asainst Defendanr ror recobyrcf a total sum of Rs.3O,23, 7'/6/_ (Rupees Thirty lakhs

¶13

(oA.No.168/2022 )

¶14

Twenty three thousand Seven hundred and Seventy Six only) with further interest @ 9.650lo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶15

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that the defendant was carrying on business of soaps and disinfectant under the name and styre of "M/s. prudvi soap Industries" availed term loan of Rs.24.00 lakhs on 13.03.2020. To secure due repayment of aforesaid roan, the defendant executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 13.03.2020. The defendant hypothecated all its movable property more fully described in the schedule to oA. After availing the roan facirity, the defendant failed to compry the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA and issued legal notice on 2L.L2.2020. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶16

Defendant was called absent set exparte on 31.10.2022.

¶17

er of the Applicant Bank examined himself evant documents, which are marked as aslw fi f, nq..Fxfr3ited fdr 'ww

¶18

¶19

(oA.N0.168/2022)

¶20

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶21

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶22

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the DeFendant as prayed for?

¶23

The defendant was cailed absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.4. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendant and hence the Appricant Bank is entiued to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶24

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

¶25

9 The Defendant is riabre to pay to the Appricant Bank a totar sum of Rs.3O.231776l- (Rupees Thirty takhs Twenty three thousand with further interest @

¶26