Allowed

State Bank of India v. Venugopal

DRT9 Jan 2023OA/171/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by a bank for recovery of a term loan with interest and costs against a defaulting borrower and property, validating the bank's claim based on averments and documentary evidence.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed costs. Applicant Bank entitled to recover Rs. 26,04,036/- with 9.65% p.a. interest on hypothecated movables and defendant’s properties.

State Bank of India versus Venugopal — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY,2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.17t OF 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery branch-II, 1-8-563/1, Opp: Sandhya Theatre, RTC cross roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad-20. Represented by its chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Sri N.Y. Venu Gopal, s/o Sri N. Yadagiri,^proprietor of M/s. Pragathi Centring Works & suppliers, H.no.3-L25/89 / 52, Sri Laxminagar colony, Boduppal, Ghatkesar, Hyderabad - 500 092.

¶10

And

¶11

Flat no.3-22, main road, Kodangal, Mahabubnagar District - 509 338.

¶12

Defendant

¶13

Counsel for the^parties: For the Applicant '"#ry\ ORDER '[* -*^{[ I trn ?m rli} "^-il *%k@

Sri C. Prabhakar

Exparte

(oA.No.171l2022)

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.26,04,O36/- (Rupees Twenty six lakhs four thousand and thirty six onry) with further interest @ 9.650lo^p.a with monthly 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.

¶18

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that the defendant was carrying on business of centringmaterial under the name and style of^..M/s. pragathiCentringworks &suppliers,, availed term loan of Rs.24.00 rakhs on 15.11.201g. To secure due repayment of aforesaid loan, the defendant executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 15.11.2018. The defendant hypothecated ail its movabre property more fuily described in the schedure to oA. After avairing the roan facirity, the defendant faired to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassiiy the account as NpA and issued regal notice on 2L.L2.2020. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶19

¶20

t set exparte on 31.L0.2022.

¶21

¶22

(OA.No.17V2o22)

¶23

4' shri D. Ravi Kumar, Manager of the Appricant Bank examined himserf as AW'1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.4.

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶25

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

¶26

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant as

¶27

prayed for?

¶28

7' The defendant was cared 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 Appricant Bank is entifled to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶29

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

¶30

i#dfrh.. ble to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Twenty six lakhs four thousand

¶31

' ?,,andl dhi.&$ 39ll onrv with further interest @ 9.650lo p.a from '!4""r lization.

¶32

loA.No.LTtl20221

¶33

i) The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶34

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

¶35

and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶39

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(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)

¶41

sdl-

¶42

H
*
*1 0 g ,tAt.l ,$8 }?
I
I\o-,,,..,,.,,W

¶43

(G. coPtcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶44

'M,,

¶45

State Bank of India v. Venugopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Venugopal

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

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 Madhu

State Bank of India versus Anjaiah