Allowed

State Bank of India v. Nakshatra Enterprises

DRT30 Oct 2023OA/177/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal adjudicated an application by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs.67.50 lakhs outstanding from respondents for a defaulted business loan. The bank was represented by an officer who substantiated the claim via documentary evidence. With respondents absent, the tribunal held the bank established its case and allowed recovery including interest and costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to pay Rs.67.50 lakhs with interest and permitted bank to proceed against hypothecated property and person/properties of respondents for realization of debt.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 3OTH DAY OF OCTOBER' 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶3

OA.No.177 of 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India. SARB, 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Center, bus terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Nakshatra Enterprises, Represented by its proprietor Mudavath Thirupathi, H.No.7-1l13 to 16, plot no.13,16, Kanchi Gachibowli road, Nallagandla, Serilingampally, Hyderabad - 500 019.

¶9

Sri Mudavath Thirupathi, s/o Mudavath Neelya, aged about 31 year, occ: business, male, Vo H.No.7-1l13 to 16, plof no.13,16, Kanchi Gachibowli road, Nallagandla, Serilingampally, Hyderabad - 5OO 5OO 019.

¶10

Hyderabad - 5OO 5OO 019. Also at H.No,10-19/1, plot no.83, Srid ha r colony, New Gayatrinagar, Jillelguda, saroornagar, Hyderabad - 5OO 079.^ffi Defenda nts

¶11

(OA.No.177 of 2023)

¶12

Counsel for the Pa rties:

¶13

For the Applicant

¶14

For the Defendants

¶15

: Tarangini Pisipati : Expa rte

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.67,5o,64gl- (Rupees Sixty Seven Lakhs Fifty thousand Six hundred and forty eight only) i.e., a sum of Rs.53,13,882/- with interest @ 14.40% p.a and a sum of Rs.S,69,756/- with future interest @ 11.25olo p,a with monthly rests from 08.05.2023 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated assets as described in the schedule to OA.

¶18

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that the defendant No.1 represented by its proprietor defendant no.2 availed loan of Rs.37.00 lakhs for the purpose of business vide letter of arrangement dated 22.08.2019. The defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation and created hypothecation of equipment and machinery as referred in schedule to oA. Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor and executed guarantee agreement dated 22.08.201g, After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the a pplica nt ra ined to classify the

¶19

(oA.No.177 of 2023)

¶20

account as NpA on 08.t1.2022 and issued recall notice dated 01.05.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶21

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 03.10.2023.

¶22

Sri K. Govinda Raju, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined herself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.20.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

7' Defendants caled absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and she exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.20. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶27

B. In the result, the

¶28

,^as under: j0qcT2W :

¶29

,h,*"**C#

¶30

(OA.No.177 of 2023)

¶31

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.67,50,64gl_ (Rupees Sixty Seven Lakhs Fifty thousand Six hundred and forty eight only) i.e., a sum of Rs.53,13,882/- with interest @ 14.40o/o p.a and a sum of Rs,5,69,756l- with future interest @ 11.25olo p.a from 08.05.2023 till the date of realization ;

¶32

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated

¶33

property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶34

the Appricant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due,

¶35

L2, The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶36

The Applicant shail fire 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

court on this day of Oct, 202 3) in the open

,sl. jr

t0 0[Im3

sd/-

(G. coPtcHAND) -'::wEsrDrNGoFFcER

State Bank of India v. Nakshatra Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Nakshatra 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 Sri v. Ram Mohan

State Bank of India versus Smt. Dumpala Ramadevi

Bank of India versus Sri Mohammed Abdul Waheed

State Bank of India versus Sri Chennaboina Naresh

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S Dynamic Cables

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Chetana Packing Industries