Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Potta Bhikshapathi

DRT17 Aug 2023OA/19/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order by the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's claim for recovery of loans against the Defendant. The court accepted the bank's evidence and deducted auction proceeds before granting recovery of the balance amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

The Defendant ordered to pay Rs.35,32,823/- (principal plus interest less auction proceeds) along with costs of the OA.

State Bank of India versus Sri Potta Bhikshapathi — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST'2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.19 ol 2023

¶4

Between :

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch -II (ARMB), t-8-563/ 7, 1't floor, Opp Sandhya theatre, RTC cross roads, chikkadpally, Hyderabad Represented by its Chief manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sri Potta Bhikshapathi, S/o Kataiah, male, aged 46 years, Occ: business, H.No.3-80, Kothulapuram, Nayanapur (Mandal), Nalgonda district,

¶9

Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the^parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendant

Smt B. Ramana Kumari

Expa rte

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a tota r s.u n?1 q[._-I,: "+Q.P 823/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Thirty twottnousqqd eigt ndred and twenty three ? AUE?W ; ,i " \Qffi;"rri')''

¶17

(oA.No.19l2023)

¶18

only) i.e., a sum of Rs.31,92,643/- in respect of term loan account with current and future interest @ 11.35o/o p.a with monthly rests and a sum of Rs.3,40,180/- in respect of GECL account with current and future interest @ 9.600/o p.a with monthly rests from 08.01.2023 till the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶19

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that the defendant availed term loan facility of Rs.24,90 lakhs on 09.12.20L9 for his business. The defendant has entered into an agreement dated 21.07.2020 with TSRTC and the term roan facirity was secured by hypothecation of bus as described in the schedule to OA. As a security towards repayment of the term loan facility, the defendant executed the Agreement of loan cum hypothecation on 09.12.2079. Subsequently the defendant availed GECL facility of Rs.4.99 lakhs and the defendant executed supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 06.10.2020. After avairing the roan facility, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA and issued legal notice dated 20.I2.2022. Inspite of several "';:"^{-"- '-'} requests and demands, tne.y'e@iriil dldgigt clear the outstanding. - ri..^ .,, -.jr Hence this OA. .w i ,1i\il * ..\i ; '<1 ' ltnur;nn :,1,, .'/" ",ii ,-,A .( N,t'^'iX -ⁱⁱ .''.^.:':,r)'..1. .. ",.,^{., j: r,} . .,. . +i'-.^r..i/.', 't"'.;ir,..' ...*,i i'-',-, t' '. i. .- , ---':

¶20

(OA.No.19/2023)

¶21

Defendant was called absent and set exparte on L3.07.2023,

¶22

shri o. Muraridhar, Manager of the Appricant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited rerevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.10. The Appricant bank fired part satisfaction memo submitting that the hypothecated schedule property was sold under E-auction and realized a sum of Rs.l11601000/_.

¶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

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 relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.10. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their claim made in the oA against the Defendant and hence the Appricant Bank is entitled to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶27

B. In the result, the present OA as under:

¶28

(oA.No.19/2023)

¶29

The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total Rs.35,32,823/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Thirty two thousand Eight hundred and twenty three only) i.e., a sum of Rs.31,92,643l- in respect of term loan account with current and future interest @ 11.35olo p.a and a sum of Rs,3,40,180/_ in respect of GECL account with current and future interest @ 9.600/o p.a from 08.01.2023 till the date of realization LESS a sum of

¶30

Rs.11,6O,OOO/- realized by sale of hypothecated property,

¶31

i) the Applicant Bank is arso entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶32

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

¶33

iii) The Appricant shaI fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶34

Issue Recovery certificate accord ing ly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶36

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed byter, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this th-e 17th day of Aug, 2023)

¶37

4*€L
(G.
2 1t tl,6 m ;ll
rRuE.coP'/
,r3',,, .g.sV
W;x,,#

¶38

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRES]DING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Sri Potta Bhikshapathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Potta Bhikshapathi

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

Union Bank of India versus Rohit Kumar

Idbi Bank Limited versus M/S . Trr Agencies

State Bank of India versus Smt. Anishetty Hymavathi

Indian Overseas Bank versus Ms Abi Industry

Union Bank of India versus M/S the Brew Cafe

Indian Bank versus M/S. Yamjala Vimala