Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Shanthi Polymers

DRT29 Mar 2023OA/310/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's OA to recover a loan amount of Rs. 30,25,426/- with interest from the borrower. The court held the bank established its claim and granted relief for recovery from hypothecated and general properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of principal Rs. 30,25,426/- with interest at 11.5% p.a. and penal interest of 2%. Authority to proceed against hypothecated and other properties.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Shanthi Polymers — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 29rH DAy OF MARCH, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.31O ot 2O22

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery branch, (SARB)-I, 2nd floor, Koti, Hyderabad Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Shanthi Polymers Represented by its Proprietor SmtBhanothSanthi, female, Aged 52 yrs, occ: business, Plot no.32, behind Grane market, Jangaon - 506 767.

¶10

Defendant

¶11

Counsel for the Parties:

¶12

For For thethe '8'' '$t M/s. Sangeetha Jalswal Ex pa rte ItIAfl $)ur,---.#r 1. The against Defendant for -!'.. recovery of a total sum of Rs.3O,2SA26l(Rupees Thirty Lakhs Twenty five thousand Four hundred and twenty six only) i.e., a sum of (Rs.11,41,159/-+ Rs.18,6S,gO4/+ Rs.28,363/- ) with interest @ 11.5^o/o p.a with monthly rests plus 2o/o penal interest

¶13

(oA.No.310/2022)

¶14

from 24.08.2022 till the date of realization and in default for sale of

¶15

movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶16

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant SmtBhanoth Shanthi as proprietor was running her business in recycling of LDPE pipes scrap and LDpE scrap in the name and style of M/s. Shanthi^polymers availed term loan facility of Rs.24,75,000/- and cash credit facility of Rs.10.00 lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 12.07.2018 and executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation and borrower consent for disclosure dated 12.07.2018. The loan amount was primarily secured by hypothecation of reprocessing plant. The defendant/ borrower also executed supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 28.05.2020. After availing the loan facility, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 29.0L.2022 and issued legal notice on 25.08.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶17

? Defendant

¶18

absent and set exparte on 10.03.2023.

¶19

1.1 29unnru8 f,
"W,*;#

¶20

(oA.No.310 /20221

¶21

shri P. Madhav Rao, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.13.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶23

6' 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 defendant was 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.13. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendant and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the

¶25

,d-Wryandcosts

¶26

u rtowed with costs, as under: n^tn !,neo'Ei5lthrfe^prt*nt^{oA is a} l'"S Tifi'r:e.I}#nt l" ,^'fr'$p '.'.r,{r/:i:Yi-"'""::i.":,,::F ,di-ffir{nbte rrsvrv to rv Pqy Lv pay to the Lrrs Appticant r-tPPrlLollL Bank DOIIK a d totat LULdI sum SUfn orOI N' ,r i'1.' ;. t' " ffi30,25,426/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Twenty five

¶27

thousand Four hundred and twenty six only) i.e., a sum of

¶28

(OA.No.310/2022)

¶29

(Rs.11,41,159/-+ Rs.18,65,9041- + Rs.28,363/- ) with interest

¶30

@ 11.5^{o/o p,a} from 24.08.2022 till realization.

¶31

i) The Applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the hypothecated movable^property as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶32

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶37

bed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open

¶38

sdl-
; * ?tmnm '- * TRUE GOPY
ir ?
U -r.{F? (G. GOPICHAND)
Dr NG oFFrcER
. r;1r,rffif*)PREst
W*r.t#

State Bank of India v. M/S. Shanthi Polymers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Shanthi Polymers

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

V.N.Vanithamani versus Federal Bank

City Union Bank Limited versus Smt. Cheela Sashikala

City Union Bank Limited, versus Smt.Chella Sashikala

Upper India Traing Co. India Pvt. Ltd. versus M/S. Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd.

Smt Vidya Maurya versus Additional District Magistrate

Punjab National Bank versus Mrs Sukhwinder Kaur @ Sukhvinder Kaur