Allowed

State Bank of India v. M S Sai Radheshyam Filling Station

DRT28 Nov 2023OA/209/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Originating Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues amounting to Rs. 36.13 lakhs with interest and costs from the Defendants.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to jointly and severally pay Rs. 36,13,3O3/- with interest and costs; Recovery certificate issued; Authority to proceed against mortgaged and other properties granted.

State Bank of India versus M S Sai Radheshyam Filling Station — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER'2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.2O9 of 2023

¶4

Between :

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Bus Terminal complex, (Commuter Amenity Centre), Koti, Hyderabad, TS Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Sai Radheshyam Filling Station, Represented by its proprietor P.i.BhulvlllarShyamSunder,^mate, Major, Sy.No.710, Guntur road, Damarcharla village and mandal, Nalgonda district - 5OB 355.

¶9

Sri Bhuyyankarshyam Sunder, :/.o:.ri-8.^{Shanker, male, major,} R/o.H.No.5-1 5, Vishnupuram, Wadapally village, Damarcherla Mandal, Nalgonda district _ 5Og 355. 3. Smt B. Radha Bai, w/o Sri B. Shyam Sunder, female, major, R/o H.No.5_15, Vishnupuram, Wadapally vil Damarcherlamanaal, Llaigo ,6d\ District - 5OB 355. ,l:ts Defenda nts

¶10

(oA. No.209/2023 )

¶11

Counsel for the Pafties:

¶12

For the Applicant

¶13

For the Defendants

¶14

Sri P.V. Satyanarayana

¶15

Exparte

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.36,13,3O3l- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs thirteen thousand Three hundred and three only) i.e., a sum of Rs.13,22,040/- under cash credit + a sum of Rs.12,53,3L2/under GECL 1.0 with interest @ 9.35o/o p.a and a sum of Rs. 10,37,951/- with interest @ 9.25% p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.2 is the proprietorof defendant no.lalong with defendant no.3 availed cash credit limit of Rs.18.00 lakhs. Defendants 2 & 3 stood as guarantors for due repayment of outstanding liability and defendants 1 to 3 executelrpqrylf security loan documents vide 2 & 3 deposited retter or arransement ,ffiryrdants

¶19

28urturn * S***#

¶20

(oA. No.209/2023)

¶21

title deeds relating to oA schedule property bearing Regd Sale deed no.2808/2001 dated 17.11.2001 and Regd sare deed no.282s/zooo dated 06.10.2000 respectively. subsequently the defendants availed cash credit of Rs.24.00 lakhs on 26.03.2013 and also executed guarantee agreement dated 26.03.2013. Subsequently the cc loan limit was renewed with enhancement upto Rs,50.00 lakhs on 76.07.2oL4 and defendants executed necessary roan documents vide arrangement dated 16.07.2014. The loan limit was enhanced upto Rs'1,00,00,000/- on 09.08.2018 and defendants executed necessary security roan documents dated og.oB.201g. After avairing the roan facilities, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 02.03.2023 and issued legal notice dated 19.05.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶22

Defendants were called absent and set exparte on 01.09.2023.

¶23

Sri Dhanunjaya panda, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.48.

¶24

Heard the Ld. Counsel

¶25

u 2BN0vrnn
rd3<br>t%..
^ S,

¶26

(oA. No.209/2023)

¶27

The point that arise for consideration^{is whether the ApplicantBankis} entitled for the claim made in the OA against the^{Defendants as} prayed for?

¶28

Defendants called absent and set exparte.^{To substantiate the caseof} the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank^wasexamined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.48'^{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.

¶29

B, In the result, the^present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶30

The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to the^Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.36,13,3O3/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs thirteen thousand Three hundred and three only) i.e., a sum of Rs.13,22,040/- under cash credit + a sum of Rs.12,53,372/- under GECL 1.0 with interest @ 9.350/o p.a and a sum of Rs.10,37,951/with interest @ 9.25olo P.a application till the date of realization;

¶31

(oA.No.209/2023)

¶32

10' The Applicant Bank is entitred to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶33

the Applicant Bank is also entiUed to proceed against the person and

¶34

properties of defendants No.,2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt d ue.

¶35

t2. The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶36

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of

¶37

receipt of order.

¶38

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶39

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of Nov, 2023)

¶41

sd/-

¶42

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

TgNEl lffn *<br>

State Bank of India v. M S Sai Radheshyam Filling Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M S Sai Radheshyam Filling Station

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

Ms Pocharam Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus Idbi Bank & Others

State Bank of India versus M/S Parsi Sivayya and Co.

Bank of India versus Mr. Ramesh Gollapelly

Indian Bank versus M/S. Sri Guru Charan Enterprises

State Bank of India versus M/S. Srinivasa Communications and Services

State Bank of India versus M/S.Varalaxmi Electronics and Enterprises

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Ms Pocharam Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus Idbi Bank &amp; Others

State Bank of India versus M/S Parsi Sivayya and Co.

Bank of India versus Mr. Ramesh Gollapelly

Indian Bank versus M/S. Sri Guru Charan Enterprises

State Bank of India versus M/S. Srinivasa Communications and Services

State Bank of India versus M/S.Varalaxmi Electronics and Enterprises

Ms Pocharam Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus Idbi Bank & Others