Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Kotha

DRT29 Mar 2023OA/315/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Originating Application against the defendant for recovery of a specific debt sum. The case was proceeded ex parte as the defendant was absent. The tribunal granted the applicant's claim and issued a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Order directed the defendant to pay Rs.28,64,460.48 inclusive of principal, interest, and costs towards the bank. Recovery certificate was issued.

State Bank of India versus Sri Kotha — DRT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

oA.No.315 0f 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery branch, (SARB)-II, H.No.1-B-563 /1, first Floor, Opp Sandhya theatre, RTC "X" roads, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sri Kothallaiah, Aged major, male Occ: business, H.No.3-84, Narayanapuram, Guddimalkapuram, Nalgonda - 508 253 Telangana state.

¶9

Defendant

¶10

For

¶11

For Shri M.V. Janaki Ram For Exparte * ) ORDER :;s /,t k:'filr the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.28,64,460.48ps (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Sixty four thousand Four hundred Sixty and paise Forty eight only) i.e.,

¶12

(oA.No.31s/2022)

¶13

a) a sum of Rs.2O,B9,55B.4Bps under Medium term loan accountwith interest @ 11.85 % p.a with monthly rests from 02.t0.2022 till the date of realization;

¶14

b) a sum of Rs.3,13,666/- under GECL 1 account with interest @ B.B0 % p.a with monthly rests from 02.t0.2022 till the date of realization;

¶15

c) a sum of Rs.4,61,236/- with interest @ 9.05 o/o p.a with monthly rests from O2.lO.2O2Z till the date of realization; and in defaurt for sare of movabres as described in the schedure to oA.

¶16

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that the defendant avaired vehicre roan of Rs.23.00 Iakhs vide arrangement dated 04.12.201g. The defendant executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation on 04.l2.2OLg agreeing to abide by terms and conditions. Further the defendant avaired working capitar term loan 1 facility of Rs.4.59 lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 06'10.2020and the totar roan facirity of Rs.27.s9 rakhs. To secure repayment of additional credit facility of Rs.4.50 lakhs the defendant executed a supprementar agreement of roan cum hypothecation on 06.10.2020. After avairing the roan facirity, the defendant faired to comply the telgts of sanction, hence the applicant bank was cqnstraired'i""&" the account as NpA and issued notice on ' .Y i:rl 'A \ 01.09.2612. Inspitl$ several requests and demands, the defendant " didTh$ I8uiqP" o,61Jno,nn. Hence this oA. \t$b*,*"eS# 2 s.s3;srfigr "{qqEoryr

¶17

(oA.No.31sl2022)

¶18

Defendant was called absent and set exparte on 01.02.2023.

¶19

a. shri o' Muraridhar, Manager of the Appricant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.15.

¶20

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶21

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶22

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶23

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 rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.15. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has ir claim made in the OA against the Defendant and Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the

¶24

l* future a nd costs. 8J ,^the .:i yly-" €fesent OA \r^ rJis q allowed vvyEu with yvtLt I LU5L5, costs, a iSs un od er:

¶25

-o a' !_{ il brri .r. .i,.#/!aOte to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of .48ps (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Sixty four

¶26

thousand Four hundred Sixty and paise Forty eight only) i.€.,

¶27

(oA.No.31s/2022)

¶28

a) a sum of Rs.20,B9,55B.4gps under Medium term roan account with interest @ 11.85 o/o p.a from 02.L0.2022 ti[ the date of realization;

¶29

b) a sum of Rs.3,13,666/- under GECL 1 account with interest @ B.B0^o/o p.a from 02.10.2022 till the date of realization;

¶30

c) a sum of Rs.4,67,236/- with interest @ 9.05 o/o p.a from 02.70.2022 till the date of realization;

¶31

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

¶32

the Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due,

¶33

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

¶34

The Appricant shail 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

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of March., 2023)

¶38

,u.^{uor,ar^tJl,} PRESID!NG OFFICER

¶39

TRUE GC}PY
*ffiv

State Bank of India v. Sri Kotha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Kotha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

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