Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed application for recovery of Rs. 51,08,203 plus future interest. Court held defendants jointly and severally liable after finding evidence unchallenged and debt admitted.
Recovery of principal amounts with respective interest rates plus future interest until realization, and execution against hypothecated assets.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD
DATED THIS THE 3OTH DAY OF AUGUST'2023
PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER
OA.No.192 of 2022
Between :
State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery branch, 2no floor, TSRTC commuter Rmenity Centre, Bus terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 5OO 095. Represented by its Chief Manager
Applicant
VERSUS
Hyderabad - 500 O9O.
new Vasavi nagar, Secunderabad _15.
Also at
Flat no.503, Mallika,s Murari, Lane beside Bharat petrol bunk, Pragathi colony, Mailardevpally, Kattedan, Hyderabad - 5OO OO5.
"'4=:\ '
-r':a# "t.il'i.
'./.,-.?- ){l9 'tJ;n'...
,$- €s '5,.
( ai!
,; 3oAUBzm ;jj
Ir r---. j.'
'. !'e ,{ ;t -.o- -r,
'\l:i,"g}+r/.,urrf..V
'+$EUX'rz
(O A.No .792/2022)
Also at
Flat no.503, Mallika,s Murari, Lane beside Bharat petrol bunk, Pragathi colony, Mailardevpally, Kattedan, Hyderabad _ 5OO OO5.
w/o Karan Sarapu, major, plot no.240, sy.no.B, New Vasavi nagar, Secunderabad _ 5OO 015.
Also at
Flat no.503, Mallika,s Murari, Lane beside Bharat petrol bunk, Srggalhicolony,Mailardevpaily, Kattedan, Hyderabad - 5OO OOi.
Defendants
Counsel For the parties:
For the Applicant
For the Defenda nts
Sri C. Prabhakar
Sri R. Guru prasad
ORDER
- The Applicant Bank filed the present OA aga inst Defendant for recovery of a total (Rupees Fifty One
Lakhs Eight thousand
t,€.,
?an 2
{OA.No.792/2022)
As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a partnership firm represented by defendants 2 & 3 as partners vide partnership deed dated 01.12.2014 for carrying on business of Bio Mass products distribution. Defendants 1 to 3 availed cash credit loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs and executed partnership letter dated 25.08.2020. Defendant no.4 stood as guarantor. To secure due repayment;of :.. - 5 a-foresaid i.cash credit loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs, defendants 1 to a,."xu.rt"a agi.eement of loan cum
(oA.No.79z/2022)
hypothecation dated 24.4.2015. on request of defendants 1 to 3 the appricant bank renewed cash credit roan of Rs.5.00 rakhs vide retter of arrangement dated 16.05.2017. The Applicant bank enhanced the cash credit loan to Rs.1O.OO on 25.01.2019. Defendants 2 & 3 executed guarantee agreement dated 25.01.2019. On request of defendants, the Applicant bank enhanced the cash credit loan to Rs'35.00 rakhs. To secure due repayment of aforesaid cash credit loan of Rs.35.00 lakhs, defendants 2 & 4 representing defendant no.1 firm executed supprementar agreement of roan cum hypothecation dated 14.05.2020. Defendants 2& 4 joinfly executed guarantee agreement dated 14.O5.2020 guaranteeing due repayment of aforesaid loan amount of Rs,35.00 rakhs. The defendants avaired CCECL loan of Rs.3.50 lakhs, FITL covid _19 of Rs.3.50 lakhs and FITL-SBF of Rs.2.60 lakhs. Defendant no. 1 firm created primary charge in respect of a' movabre assets fury described in oA schedure property.
It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the 666sun1 was classified as NpA. Inspite of demands made by Appricant thq- defendants have not regurarized the account' and the applicant uanF-isii,ap feg.ar notice dated 09.05.2022 but the defendants did not : ! come. forward'to ".i,qpay ,: the same. The total I ..,ti 4: i,..-.n 'l ,,1
loA.No.L92/2022]|
claim of Applicant against defendants is Rs.51,O8,2O3l_ (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs Eight thousand Two hundred and three onty) with current and future interest @ 11.75olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till realization. Hence the OA.
2' The Defendants fired written statement admitting the availment of loan from the Appricant bank and arso their riabirity to pay the roan amount. It is contended that due to pandemic lockdown, there was huge loss of assets many assets were turned as scrap. It is further contended that the defendants were not given opportunity in reconsidering the roan as per the notification issued by RBI dated 15.02.2022. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.
. l- - ,1.'
: {i i:,
.1 - "r ,,]Y- 1
.-.,,:
,,.
.! i'
.,il lltl 2.i2J I
;'
5 ,.r ''. :i
'. '. ' j-L ''. ^'-;
\l \.r' '.i * +';. .-. . . "' .'"''.-'
-s.:'- !l-::-- ; . ..
t"-
' .-,.::. -.
(oA.No.L92/2o2zl
4' Heard the Appricant bank counser. Inspite of severar opportunities, no arguments from defendants. Hence the right of advancing arguments from defendants were forfeited on 22.08.2023.
i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defenda nts ?
ii) To what relief ?
point No.i):
AW.1 is not for defendants. The defendants h evidence to
(OA.No.t92/20221
substantiate that their liabirity is ress than the amount mentioned in the OA and no supporting documents filed for establishing that they have not created the mortgage. Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW. 1 coupred with recitars Ex.A.1 to A.25 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly estabrished that the defendants are jointry and severary riabre to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.
Point No.ii)
B. In the result, the present original application is allowed with costs as under:
a) a sum of Rs.2,O4,L24/- under loan a/c No.3960818627L with further interest @ 11.75olo p.a from date of filing of OA till realization;
b) a sum of Rs.3,45,1O4/- under loan A/c No.39612985687 with further interest @ 7.80o/o p.a from date of application till the date of rea lization ;
(OA.No.t92/2022)
(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by-her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3oth day of Aug, 2023)
sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER
TR,US CCIPY
l*W'g'*li,n-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim against the defendants as made in the original application?
What is the appropriate relief to be granted to the Applicant Bank given the un rebuted evidence and defendant admissions?
State Bank of India
M/s. Vishnu Enterprises
Sri Karan Sarapu
Sri Sarapu Prem Prakash
Smt S. Gowmathi
Gummadigopichand
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
