Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ms Sri Rama Enterprises

DRT16 Jan 2023OA/177/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an OA filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 71,44,566/- with interest against the proprietor of M/s. Sri Rama Enterprises and another. The bank was found to have established its claim and entitlement to proceed against mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Defendants directed to pay Rs. 71,44,566/- with interest; Applicant entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and persons; Recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Ms Sri Rama Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARYI2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.177 of 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch -II, 1-8-563/1, RTC Cross roads, Opp Sandhya theatre, 1't floor, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad- 20 . Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Sri Rama Enterprises, Represented by its^proprietor Bollincheru Narayana Reddy, R/o H. No.3-7 L /2,^{peddamangalaram} Village, Moinabadmandal, Rangareddy district - 501 504.

¶9

Sri Bollincheru Narayana Reddy, s/o Sri B. Kasi Reddy, aged about 53 yrs, occ:^prop of M/s. Sri Rama Enterprises, R/o H.No.2-6913,

¶10

Peddamangalaram Village, Moinabadmandal,

¶11

Rangareddy district - 501 504. Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the

¶13

For the Dayakar Rao For thethe 16Jffiqm

For thethe

(oA.No.t77 /zo22l

ORDER

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.71,44,566/- (Rupees Seventy one lakhs forty four thousand five hundred and sixty six onty) i.e., a sum of Rs.55,14,3141- under CCSMEwith future interest @ 11.50o/o p.a with monthly rests ; a sum of Rs.4,78,597/_ under CCECL with^o/o p.a future interest @ 7.25o/o p.a with monthly rests and a sum oF Rs.11,51,655/_ under GECL ith future interest @ 7.gO% p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶18

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that that defendant no.1 is a firm represented by its proprietor defendant no.2 avaired term roan for the purpose of distribution of cool drinks business. Defendant no.1 firm represented by defendant no.2 availed cash credit CCSME limit of Rs.49,95,00/; CCECL limit of Rs.4,45,000/ and GECL limit of Rs.9,96,000/_. Defendan!19.2 stood as guarantor and created equitable mortgage as fully mentioned in the schedule to OA. In nce.'to r::.; lities availed, the defendants executed hypothecation dated t.OI.2O2O, 1'""TT1n'o5n6roan* hypothecation dated 13.05.2020 &

¶19

(oA.No.t77 /20221

¶20

05.06.2020 and memorandum for recording creation of mortgage by deposit of tiile deeds dated 1.01.2020. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants faired to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA and issued demand notice and legal notice dated LL.04.2022. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶21

Defendants were called absent set exparte on 28.71.2022.

¶22

+. Shri Ramesh Kumar, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.19.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

The point is whether the Applicant Bank is OA against the Defendants as

¶25

''&vea * lled absent and set exparte. To substantiate nt Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has

¶26

(oA.No.t77 /20221

¶27

estabrished their craim 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.

¶28

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

¶29

The Defendants 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.71,44,566/- (Rupees seventy one lakhs fofi four thousand five hundred and sixty six only) i.e., a sum of Rs.55,14,314l_ under CCSMEwith future interest @ 11.50% p.a; a sum of Rs.4,7g,Sg7/_ under CCECL with % p.a future interest @ 7.25o/o p.a and a sum of Rs.11,51,655/- under GECL ith future interest @ 7.80% p.a from date of filing of OA till realization.

¶30

i) The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the mortgaged immovable property as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶31

mn";Rffir"";N,s ffiq atso entiued to proceed asainst the personentiued to proceed asainst the personto proceed asainst the personproceed asainst the personasainst the personthe personperson

¶32

mn";Rffir"";N,s ffiq atso entiued to proceed asainst the personentiued to proceed asainst the personto proceed asainst the personproceed asainst the personasainst the personthe personperson

¶33

J^{T$ ffff9f1f, o*|"r"nountNo.2 and propertiesor derendant} Yl. dito.1^rrrmtowarcE of the debt due. '''9'^p;,nno,t*L9

¶34

,,,, ' ;i:tXffiffik is entiued to the costs or the oA.

¶35

(oA.N0.177l2022)

¶36

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

¶37

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶38

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶39

!?l.i"bd.^{p the p.A., transcribed by her,} corrected, sisned and court on this the 16th day of Jan., 2023) pronounced by me in the open

¶40

sdl-

¶41

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

TRUE COPY n"".Mir,, DRT.I, HYDERABAD.

¶43

¶44

State Bank of India v. Ms Sri Rama Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ms Sri Rama Enterprises

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 Farooq Ahmed

State Bank of India versus Sri Vatte Krishnaiah

Mr Virendra So Rajeshwarprasad versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Smt Pathan Mehajabeen

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Vishwakarma Engineering Works and Others

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Navtej Jit Singh