Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sree Eletronics and Agency

DRT14 Jun 2023OA/9/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's OA for recovery of a loan default. Finding the bank's case substantiated by documentary evidence, the court held the defendants jointly and severally liable for the outstanding principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.53,25,440/- with interest; bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged property and personal/property assets of defendants; recovery certificate issued

State Bank of India versus Sree Eletronics and Agency — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF ]UNE'2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.9 OF 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch -II, Chikkadpally, Opp Sandhya theatre, RTC "X" roads, Hyderabad Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Sree Electronics and Agency, Represented by its^proprietor Mr. Gaddem Chaitanya, H.No.3-2-106 / t4, Kamala Nehru colony, Armoor village & Mandal, Nizamabad district -5O3 224.

¶10

Sri Gaddem Chaitanya, s/o Gaddem Pedda Rajanna, aged 37 yrs,^pipri village, Armoor mandal, Nizamabad district - 503 224.

¶11

Defend a nts

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

For the Applicant

¶14

Shri M. Venkatar Divakar

For the

(oA.No.9/2023)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.53,25,44Ol- (Rupees Fifty Three lakhs Twenty five thousand Four hundred and forty only) with further interest @ 12.50o/o p.a with monthly rests from 23,12.2022 till realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant no.1 is a proprietary concern and defendant no.2 is a proprietor availed cash credit loan of Rs.49,00,000/- on 18.03,2020. the defendant no.2 hypothecated the stocks of defendant no.1 vide agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 18.03.2020. Defendant no.2 mortgaged the open plot situated at pipri village and deposited original sale deed document no.5983/2017 dated tZ.I2.2OL7. Defendant no.2 executed registered memorandum for recording creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds document no'2218/2020 dated 18.3.2020. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was colstrained !9..,classify the account as NpA on "li'"^{"., -..} 'i ,.''' , ',^' ''t'tt. 28.O9.2022. Inspite'of3bvera I^.requ demands, the defendants did not clear the oLit*tandins.

¶20

(oA.No.9/2023)

¶21

Defendants were set exparte on 29.O3.2023,

¶22

Shri O. Muralidhar, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.6.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶25

The defendants were called 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.6. 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 Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶26

B. In the result, the pr ,^{asu nder:}

¶27

(oA.No.9/2023)

¶28

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total of Rs.53,25,44Ol- (Rupees Fifty Three lakhs Twenty five thousand Four hundred and forty only) with further interest @ 12.50o/o p.a from 23.t2.2O22 till the date of realization.

¶29

i) Ihe applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged immovable property as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

Issue Recovery certificate accord ing ly,

¶34

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶35

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open
court on this the t4t'day of June, 2023)
..;,' -'rf,<i I vl "
ffi;:",,.i. 'rJ sdt-
'1t* & b 5 '1\r 2\
.i:- .r il -L ir, ii ,^ lv' (G. GOPICHAND)ar\hrarr vvr rlr r ^ rrs, irr\l
^ . . il[l llrn it PR rESIDING OFFICER
: 1 4 lfin rll
", r q JUtl ?fin "l l
'ii. 'kr,r,.e# o p$ .'::":.m; rRuE PqfI
t:=-_"." n"'i]l-- r*Yi'Ems'1o'

State Bank of India v. Sree Eletronics and Agency

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sree Eletronics and Agency

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

Punjab National Bank versus Anil Daulat Mahale

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited versus Biltube Industries Limited

State Bank of India versus Smt. Jyothi Singh

State Bank of India versus M/S. Adithya Engineering

State Bank of India versus M/S. Cell Tone