Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Life Care Children Hospital

DRT14 Mar 2023OA/328/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India against Life Care Children Hospital. The Bench held that the bank established its claim and directed recovery of the principal sum along with interest and costs, permitting sale of hypothecated movables to realize the debt due.

What did the court decide?

The respondent defendant was liable to pay Rs. 25,05,522 along with interest and costs. The applicant bank was entitled to realize the debt through sale of hypothecated movables and by proceeding agai

State Bank of India versus M/S Life Care Children… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE I4THDAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESTDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.328 ot 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

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

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Life Care Children Hospital, Represented by its proprietor SmtKa nnaShravanthi, Wo Kanna Ramesh, aged 37 yrs, Occ: business , H.No.2-4-46/57, Brahmanwadi, Narayanpet district Mahabubnagar - 509 210.

¶9

Defendant
D. Sa ffi*h
Expa
fg 14 rlln 1.^-
ORDER
'.,Q

¶10

Counsel for the^parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendant

recovery of a total sum of Rs.25,05,522l_ (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Five thousand Five hundred and twenty two only) with interest @ 13.5olo p.a (inclusive of 2o/o penal interest) from

¶15

(OA.No.328/2022

¶16

30.09.2022 till the date of realization and in default for sale of movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶17

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant availed term loan of Rs.2g,50,000/_ vide arrangement retter dated 22.03.2027 and executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 22.03.2021. The term loan was repayable in B1 monthly instalments of Rs.35,120/_ per month commencing from 29.05.2021. The loan was primarily secured by hypothecation of equipment's purchased out of bank funds, stocks and book debts and colateraily secured by machinery procured out of bank's finance. After availing the loan facility, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA and issued regar notice on 29'4.2022. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶18

Defendant was called absent and set exparte on 22.02.2023.

¶19

Shri GanjiPrasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents,

¶20

Ex.A.1 to A.10.

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶22

ilAB 'n73

¶23

(oA.No.328/2022

¶24

6' The point that arise for consideration is whether the Appricant Bank is entiiled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶25

7' The defendant was cared 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.10. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendant and hence the Appricant Bank is entired to recover the craim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶26

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

¶27

The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of ofRs.25,05,522/_ (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Five thousand Five hundred and twenty two only) with interest @ 11.5% p.a (excluding 20/o penar interest) from 30.09.2022 tirr realization

¶28

i) The Applicant bank is entifled to hypothecated movables as described i towards realization of the debt due.

'i 4 r,tAB 7nn

'lhrnrot*I.
S;;r$

(oA.No.328 /2022

ii) the Appricant Bank is arso entiiled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards reatization of the debt due.

¶33

iii) The Appricant Bank is entiiled to the costs of the oA.

¶34

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

¶35

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶36

11' Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶37

[3J'l*'J?,t1i,""'r,.5!1i;;''fl:i.lr.1.Jiji".,ed,^{sisned and pronounced} by me in the open

¶38

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

:)-- '-- -
#tuk"<br>8,.I 1{ uAB 7rt7l :
Eq
%

¶40

1,,,,ffi,

¶41

State Bank of India v. M/S Life Care Children Hospital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Life Care Children Hospital

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Ranjeet Pandey

M/S.Karnataka Bank Limited versus M/S.Shakunthala Industries

Bank of India versus M/S.Supreme Pharma

Mariyamma John versus Thiruvalla Urban Cooperative Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Syed Ashfaq Ahmed

State Bank of India versus Ms Auto Plaanate Indostry Pvt. Ltd.