Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Shivaji Poly Containers

DRT3 Feb 2023OA/190/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed State Bank of India's application for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 59,04,458/- from respondents for cash credit, term loan, and FITL loans, holding the bank entitled to recover debt with interest and proceed against hypothecated movables.

What did the court decide?

Allowed recovery of Rs. 59,04,458/- with interest; directed to proceed against hypothecated movables and defendants' properties; ordered payment of costs.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Shivaji Poly Containers — Money Laundering | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs rHE 3RD DAy oF FEBRUARI,2o2z

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.190 ot 2022

¶3

Between:

¶4

State Bank of India. Stre-ssed Assets Reiovery Branch, 2no floor, TSRTC Bus terminal complex, I:?Irlr,uf^{Amenitycentre), Koti,} Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Sri Uma Maheswara Foam products. # Represented by its .pronrietoi s rt ri.-u.ri.l iiu, Major,^plot No.43/276, SV.rVo.ilO,'''^"""" Dhoolpally, Dundigal, Gandimaisamma frandal, Hyderabad-500014.

¶8

Smt K. Urmila,

¶9

L?l:l^{ploJ No.2e, Boudhanasar,} 5.uch itra, Jeedimefl a, Medcha'i, Malkajgiri district _ 5OO 055. ....

¶10

Counsel for the parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

Exparte

ORDER

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a totat sum of Rs.59,O4,45gl_ (Rupees Fifty Nine

¶16

(oA.No.190/2022)

¶17

lakhs Four thousand Four hundred and fifty eight only) i.e., a sum of Rs.t4,27,692l- under cash credit with interest @ 10.15olo p.a; a sum of Rs.37,41,636/- with interest @ 10.20olo p.a under term loan and a sum of Rs.7,35,130/- under FITL loanwith interest @ 14.75o/op.a from date of filing of oA till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movabres as described in the schedule to OA.

¶18

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.2 is the proprietor of 1'r defendant avaired term loan of Rs.38.00 rakhs, cash credit roan of Rs.13.00 rakhs on 30'11'2019 and the defendants executed necessary security roan documents in favour of Applicant bank. Subsequently the defendants availed GECL loan limit of Rs.B.0O lakhs on 27.tL.2020and executed supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation and Defendant no.2 executed guarantee agreement dated 27.LL.2020. After availing the loan facitities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA and issued legar notice dated 27.05.39r-31..]nrr'te of severat requesrs and demands, the

¶19

defend outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶20

¶21

exparte on 16.01.2023.

¶22

(OA. No.190/2022)

¶23

Shri Ganji Prasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.11.

¶24

q 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 Defendants as prayed for?

¶27

The defendants were 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.11. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entiued to recover the craim made in the OA with future interest and cogts.

¶28

B. is allowed with costs, as under: 9, severally liable to pay to the Applicant of ,04,4581- (Rupees Fifty Nine lakhs Four dred and fifty eight only) i.e., a sum of Rs.t4,27, cash credit with interest @ 10.15olo p,a; a sum of Rs.37,4I,636/- with interest @ 10.20olo p.a under term loan and

¶29

(0A.N0.190/2022)

¶30

a sum of Rs.7,35,130/- under FITL loanwith interest @ t4.75o/o

¶31

p.afrom date of filing of OA till realization,

¶32

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

¶33

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶37

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶38

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed b_y her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3.d day of Feb., 2023)

¶39

ffi&
Smt'ts9

¶40

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. M/S. Shivaji Poly Containers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Shivaji Poly Containers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Kasula Mahesh

Punjab National Bank versus Dhananjay Kumar Dubey and others

Icici Bank Limited versus Smt. Hemlata

Dinesh Sales versus Bank of Baroda

Arvind Kumar Chaudhary versus Punjab National Bank

Nandini Kumari versus Punjab National Bank