Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Rai Enterprises

DRT4 Oct 2023OA/306/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application for recovery of dues, the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I at Hyderabad, weighing the bank's evidence of loan availing and default, held the applicants bank entitled to recover the claimed principal and interest from the respondent-proprietor and firm, allowing the OA.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability imposed to pay Rs.56,35,253/- plus future interest; authority to proceed against hypothecated movables and personal properties granted; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Rai Enterprises — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER' 2O2g

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.3O6 of 2022

¶4

Between :

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuier Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal complex, koti, Hyderabad - 500 095, Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Rai Enterp rises, A proprieta ry concernf Represented by its proprietor The defendant no.2 herein. H.No.6-56/2/4, Opp IDpL factory, Balanagar, Hyderabad - 5OO 037.

¶9

Sri Babban Rai, Aged about 57 years, male, Occ: business &^proprietor of 1" defendant, H.No.7-6-68, Goutham nagar, Ferozguda, Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 500 011.

¶10

And

¶11

H.No.7-B-283l2, Goutham nagar,
Ferozguda, Bowenpally,
Secunderabad - 5OO 011.
\|.\ Defendants
ii.\
,. \
*
il
i:

¶12

(oA. No.306/2022)

¶13

Counsel for the Parties:

¶14

For the Applica nt

¶15

For the Defendants

¶16

Sri G. Prabhakar Sarma Sri Uday Vir Singh

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.56,35,2S3l_ (Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs Thirty five thousand Two hundred and fifty three only) i.e,, a) a sum of Rs.49,35,017/- under cash credit loan account No.37341641896 with interest @ 16.15% p.a with monthly rests; b)a sum of Rs.7,00,236l- under GECL loan account No.39530662791 with interest @ B,B0o/o p.a with monthly rests;

¶19

from date of filing of oA till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern carryrng on business in manufacturing of fan components and defendant no.2 is the proprietor of defendant no,1 firm. The defendants avaired cash credit roan of Rs.15.00 lakhs vide letter of arrangerlent dated O4.L2.2017. To secure due repayment of loaf_r-.facitity, -thEGfenaant ,., no. 1 represented ,.. lii ."li \ by its proprietor executed.agreemerit of tbh\cum hypothecation. i1 : ;ho$" i 1^0aItI?an :ji, ir .,i'i:r' ."...^{,.,- '} -rr:'i*^'' :..i.i l!...... iJ.' .....,i,1,. l "i:,,i. _ -;:_ - /_

¶21

(oA.No.305/2022)

¶22

Subsequently the loan facility was renewed and enhanced to Rs.45.00 lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 08.4.2019. The defendants availed GECL of Rs.B.54 lakhs while continuing the cash credit loan of Rs.45.00 lakhs. To secure due repayment of overall loan facilities, the defendants executed supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 22.05.2020. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanqtion, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA and issued legal notice dated 09.09.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶23

shri Uday Vir Singh filed vakalath for defendants but not filed Written statement. Hence the right of filing of ws was forfeited on 06,07.2023.

¶24

Shri P. Sandeep, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.14.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim mad€:irf:'iil'"-. oo against the Defendants as prayed for? :

¶27

:
-
. 'r
z. t.i
il _ I flBT; -., r. J --_.;,',;
\ rl:-.,: :
...fy i
,s4" .',.., -.-, .. ...
':: ':''' '." " ^

¶28

(oA. No.306/2022)

¶29

Counsel for defendants filed vakalath but not filed WS. 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.14. 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.

¶30

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

¶31

9 ' The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.56,35,253l- (Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs Thirty five thousand Two hundred and fifty three only) i.e., a) a sum of Rs.49,35,017/- under cash credit loan account No.37341641896 with interest @ 16.15o/o p.a;

¶32

b)a sum of Rs.7,00,236/- under GECL loan account No.39530662791 with interest @ B.B0o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶33

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables as described tn

¶34

0 4 0[I ?0?3

¶35

(oA. No.306/2022)

¶36

the Applicant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

t4. Issue Recovery certificate a cco rd in g ly.

¶40

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶41

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of Oct, 2023)

sd/_

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

:';tUE EO.PY

.4ssl' olt:,,-'

State Bank of India v. M/S. Rai Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Rai Enterprises

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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Rav Smittens ( Opc) Private Ltd.

State Bank of India, versus M/S. Krishna Metal Works

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) versus Mr. Marneedi Surya Chandra Rao

Uco Bank versus Mr. Yalavula Ramu

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Vasantham Swapna

State Bank of India versus Sri. Gouri Narasimha Reddy