Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Wellcare Clinics

DRT31 Aug 2023OA/232/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Gummadi Gopichand allowed the Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a working capital loan and term loan advanced to M/s. Wellcare Clinics and Dr. Neela Neelima, holding the bank entitled to the principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability to pay Rs. 3,17,7,024/- with interest and costs; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated and other properties.

State Bank of India versus M/S Wellcare Clinics — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST' 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER OA.No.232 of 2022

¶3

Between :

¶4

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Bra n ch, (SARB), 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity centre, Bus terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad. Telangana State. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶5

Applica nt

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Wellcare Clinics, Represented by its proprietrix The 2no defenda nt herein 2nd floor, Kondapride, road no.1, Jubilee hills, Near IOC Petrol pump, Hyderabad - 500 033.

¶8

¶9

E 602, Casa Rouge Apartments, Jubilee gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500 084.

¶10

Dr. Neela Neelima, W/o Neela Srinivas, Aged about 45 years, Occ: business and proprietrix Of 1st defendant, E 602, Casa Rouge Apartments, lubilee gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500 084.

¶11

loA.No.232/2022]r

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶14

Sri G. Prabhakar Sarma Ex pa rte

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.3L,Z7,O24/- (Rupees Thirty one lakhs Seventy seven thousand and twenty four only) together with interest @ 10.05o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till realization and in default for sale of hypothecated property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶17

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern represented by its proprietrix, the 2nd defendant herein availed working capital loan for establishment of diagnostic centre and dental clinic. The defendants availed cash credit loan of Rs,2.00 lakhs and term loan of Rs.32 lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 02.05.2019. To secure due repayment of overall loan facilities of Rs.34 lakhs, the defendants executed agreement ot logeffi{y.py ion dated 02.05.2018. :.- '. 'i: :._. - The defendants hypoth6igutat-*litnu mAchinery and equipment *,:.!

¶18

(OA.No.232/20221

¶19

including 2D Echo, USG, X Ray machine, dental treatment chair etc more fully described in the schedule to OA. After availing the loan facility, the defendants Failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA and issued legal notice on 20.06.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶20

Sri Mukesh Sharma filed vakalath for defendants but failed to file written statement. Hence the right of filing WS of defendants was forfeited on 12,06.2023.

¶21

Shri Shailendra Rao Joshi, Deputy Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.9.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶23

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?

¶24

The defendants To substantiate the case of the who is official of the

¶25

lOA.No.232/20221

¶26

Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.9. 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.

¶27

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

¶28

9, The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.3t,77,O24/- (Rupees Thirty one lakhs Seventy seven thousand and twenty four only) together with interest @10.05o/o p.a from date of application till realization.

¶29

i) The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated property as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of its d ues.

¶30

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants 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

I1 AU6 20n

¶34

(OA. No.23212022 )

¶35

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶37

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31't day of Aug, 2023)

¶38

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND)

¶39

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶40

'::,i&H,f,,

State Bank of India v. M/S Wellcare Clinics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Wellcare Clinics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Laxmi Kirana and General

Canara Bank versus M S Bismilla Agency

State Bank of India versus M/S. Vishnu Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S .Joyce Industries

Union Bank of India versus M/S.Venkateshwara Traders

State Bank of India versus Sri P. Sachin Kumar