Allowed

State Bank of India v. Smt.Kommu Sujatha

DRT26 Apr 2023OA/367/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

, The DRT allowed the bank applicant's plea for recovery. The court held the bank established its claim and directed the respondent to pay the principal, future interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Payment of Rs. 22,90,618/- with future interest, realization from hypothecated movables, process against person and properties, and costs of the OA.

State Bank of India versus Smt.Kommu Sujatha — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.367 of 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC commuter Amenity centre, Bus terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

SmtKommuSujatha, Wo^{KommuSrinivasulu,} H.No.28l1052-2, deva nagar, Nandyal, Kurnool dist - 518 502. Mobile no.8639885652

¶10

Defendant

¶11

Counsel for the Parties:

¶12

For the Applicant

¶13

For the Defendant

¶14

The Applicant Bank filed the present

¶15

*
2 E APR 2[t3
for

¶16

recovery of a total sum of Rs.22,9Ar61.81-

¶17

lakhs Ninety thousand Six hundred and Eighteen only) i.e., a sum of Rs.19,53,556/-with future interest @12.50o/o p.a with

¶18

(oA.No.367/2022)

¶19

monthly rests and a sum of Rs.3,37,062/- with further interest @ 16.800/o p.a with monthly rests 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 defendant availed cash credit loan of Rs.5.75 lakhs and term loan of Rs.18.00 lakhs totaling a sum of Rs.23.75 lakhs through arrangement letter dated 09.12.2020. To secure due repayment of aforesaid cash credit and term loans, the defendant no.1 executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 09.12.2020 and hypothecated all its machinery, stocks of bricks fully described under OA schedule property, 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 and issued legal notice dated 20.10.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶21

Defendant was called absent set exparte on 08.03.2023.

¶22

(oA. No.367l2022)

¶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

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.7. 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 OA with future interest and costs.

¶26

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.22,9O,618/- (Rupees Twenty Two lakhs Ninety thousand Six hundred and Eighteen only) i.e., a sum of Rs.19,53,556/with future fu rther realization. // * 26 rPfrWt !

r0.

(oA.No.367l2022)

(i)

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables 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 person and^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

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected. signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of April., 2023)

sdl-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

TRUE^GOPY ,l u*-a* ? TLrov/ut'j ,#fifiEHfil

¶42

State Bank of India v. Smt.Kommu Sujatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Smt.Kommu Sujatha

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

Bank of India versus M/S. Spr Industries

Idbi Bank versus M S Supriya Medical Hall

Mrs Asha So Damodhar Shelke versus Aavas Financiers Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Vinay Naidu

State Bank of India versus Venkat Reddy

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Sasaram Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.