Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Thirumala Filling Station

DRT6 Dec 2023OA/338/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the Original Application filed by the State Bank of India for recovery of a loan of Rs. 20.71 Lakhs from the Defendant. The Tribunal held the claim established and granted a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

The Defendant was liable to pay Rs. 20,71,463/- with subsequent interest at 9.85% p.a. The Applicant was granted recovery certificate and costs.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Thirumala Filling Station — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrs rHE 6rHDAy oF DECEMBER' 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.338 of 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, SARB-1, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. ThirumalaFilling Station, Represented by its ProPrietor, Mr. M. Thirumalesha, 435/LU, Jiblakpally, Yadadri, Telangana - 508 284.

¶10

And also at

¶11

H.No.4-82, DevulammaNagara, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri - 508 284.

¶12

Defenda nt

¶13

Counsel for the Parties:

¶14

For the Applicantthe ApplicantApplicant ri A. Srinivas Reddy For the Defendant .fI%"'ry'i\ i::^{o 6 oEr zon} :i %,"#

¶15

For the Applicantthe ApplicantApplicant

¶16

(oA. No.338/2022)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2O,7L,463/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Seventy One thousand Four Hundred and Sixty three only) with subsequent interest @ 9.85o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of OA till the date of realization.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant availed credit facilities for MSME loan vide MSME loan A/c No.39873812433 to a tune of Rs.29,80,000/- on 17.12.2020. The defendant executed registration certificate, letter of arrangement and loan cum hypothecation dated 17.L2.2020. After availing the loan facilities, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA on 27.09.2022 and issued legal notice dated 28.09.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶20

Defendant called absent and set exparte on 18.07.2023.

¶21

Sri A.G. Satya Prasad, of the Applicant Bank examined himself as nt documents, which are marked as "^oEoEC2o23

¶22

(oA. No.338/2022 )

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant as prayed for?

¶25

Defendant 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.6. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendant and^hencethe Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim 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} Rs.2O,71,463/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Seventy One thousand Four Hundred and Sixty three only) with^subsequent interest @ 9.85% p.a from date of OA till the date of realization;

¶28

the Applicant Bank is against the^person and^properties of defer of the debt due.

¶29

¶30

1. The Applicant Ba is entiitled li to' -, thersosts' 'l⁽ the OA.

¶31

(oA. No.338/2022 )

¶32

t2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶33

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶34

14, Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶35

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of Dec, 2023)

¶36

sd/_

¶37

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶38

ffi<br>0 6 0E[ ,-023

¶39

T6{,[JE COPY,T
%sr,k#

State Bank of India v. M/S. Thirumala Filling Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Thirumala Filling Station

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

State Bank of India versus M/S. Nagendra Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

Indian Bank versus Pulicheri Roja Rani Enterprises

State Bank of India versus M/S Kyra Transmission Industries

State Bank of India versus M/S . Pranavi Agencies

Union Bank of India versus M/S.Vallabh Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Syed Muzaffer Hussain