Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Hanuma Milk Products

DRT13 Jun 2023OA/38/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of a loan default of Rs.25,22,987/-. The court held the defendant liable to pay the principal, interest, and to proceed against hypothecated assets and personal properties. Costs were awarded to the applicant bank.

What did the court decide?

Defendant ordered to pay Rs.25,22,987/- plus interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated assets and personal properties; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Hanuma Milk Products — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.38 of 2022

¶3

Between :

¶4

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuier Amenity Centre, Bus terminal complex, koti, Hyderabad - 500 095, Represented by its Chief Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Hanuma Milk Products, Represented by its Proprietrix, B. Rajitha, H.No.16-5-91 , Dattatreyanagar, Gopalapuram, Khammam - 507 OO2, Khammam district, Telangana.

¶8

Also at

¶9

H.No.15-18-9, Prashanthi nagar, Khanapuram, Khammam, Telangana - 507 002.

¶10

0 | JUI 2$l3

¶11

Also at:

¶12

M/s. Hanuma Milk Products, Rep by its Proprietrix, B. Rajitha, 1-33, Near Govt Primary School, Pedda Thanda, Naidupeta, Khammam - 507 003. Khammam district, Telanga na.

¶13

Defenda nt

¶14

(OA.No,38/2022)

¶15

Counsel for the Parties:

For the Applicant

Sri C. Prabhakar

For the Defendant

Sri Surya Balu Mahendra

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.25,22,987/- (Rupees Twenty five Lakhs Twenty Two thousand Nine hundred Eighty Seven only) ie., Rs.21,84,576/- under loan account No.37845911113 with further interest @ 9.95% p.a with monthly rests and a sum of Rs.3,38,411lwith further interest @ 9.65% p,a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated assets as described in the schedule to OA.

¶22

As in the application, the Applicant Bank states tha on business of Milk products under tn" nu,.n/ffitrt" ortflunrru fi,No.orcts" avaited cash credit toan .r n..s.o\B*Fq[#"{q€^i1 # rr r0 rakhs totarins to Rs.23.50 tatns tnroo'$fl.)ft,f lf.af$$ffnt dated 02.08.2018. ro secure or" r"o.r."X{? #F:i;an facitities, the defendanr executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation^-dated 02.08.2018. To secure due repayment of loan facilities, the defendant hypothecated all movable property more fully described under OA Schedule property.

¶23

(OA.No.38/2022)

¶24

The defendant executed revival letter dated 25.07.2021 and admitted the liability thereunder.

¶25

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendant has availed the said loan facility and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NPA. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendant has not regularized the account, and the applicant bank issued legal notice dated 03.01.2022 but the defendant did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendant is Rs.25,22,987l- (Rupees Twenty five Lakhs Twenty Two thousand Nine hundred Eighty

¶26

Seven only) ie., Rs.21,84,576J.- under loan account No.37845911113 with further inte a sum of Rs.3,38,411/- with 6 further interest *g.osoto rests from date of application till reali2atiorn 4 [gt.ftt]" o{ ill-rd'"^ .(n 2. The Defendant filed u etatafijfu&if,mitting the availment of loan "\g-gew-9 from the Applicant bank a liability to pay the loan amount. The defendant contended that she has paid Rs.10,20,000/- towards repayment of the loan and so the outstanding amount mentioned by the applicant is not correct. It is further contended that due to covid-19, the defendant sustained loss in the business and she also suffered from

¶27

(OA.No.38/2022)

¶28

mental illness and without considering the said facts, the Applicant bank has filed the present OA.

¶29

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Sri K. Govind Raju, Manager as AW.1 and through him marked 9 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.9. As against this, the defendant did not choose to adduce any evidence on her behalf in support of their contentions and also did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert his Chief Evidence. Inspite of repeated adjournments, the defendant failed to file evidence Affidavit, hence the right of filing Defendant Evidence Affidavit was closed on 10.04.2023.

¶30

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶31

Now, the points that arise for

¶32

i) Whether the Applicant Bank made in OA
'l
against the defendant ?
ii) To what relief ?
JIJI 2[A
Point No.i):
hh,-d#

¶33

As per the documents filed by the Applicant Bank and also as per the admissions made by the defendant in the Written statement, it is very clear that the defendant has availed loan from the Applicant

¶34

(oA.No.38/2022)

¶35

Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defendant are clearly mentioned in the statement of account filed by Applicant Bank. The defendant has not placed any material documents for establishing that she has paid any other amounts to the Applicant Bank which is not reflected in the statement of accounts,

¶36

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendant. The defendant has not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that her liability is less than the amount mentioned in the OA. Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A.1 to A.9 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The

¶37

Applicant bank clearly established t is liable to pay

¶38

the OA amount to the Applican

¶39

Point No.ii)

¶40

In the result, the present Orig

¶41

'^
* *
(, 0 { Jl,[ 20m
16
with costs

¶42

as u nder:

¶43

i) The Defendant is liable to Applicant Bank a total sum Rs.25,22,987l- (Rupees Twenty five Lakhs Twenty Two thousand Nine hundred Eighty Seven only) ie., Rs.2t,84,576/under loan account No.37845911113 with further interest @ 9.950/o

¶44

(oA.No.38/2022)

¶45

p.a and a sum of Rs.3,38,411l- with further interest @ 9.650lo p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization.

¶46

ii) The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated assets as described in schedule to OA.

¶47

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

¶48

iv) The Applicant Bank is entiiled to the costs of the OA.

¶49

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

¶50

B. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶51

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶52

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of lune, 2023)

¶53

sd/-

¶54

(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶55

B 4 JUL Ztr1J

¶56

, fr.u,E GOPY

State Bank of India v. M/S. Hanuma Milk Products

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Hanuma Milk Products

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of India versus M/S. Rayalas Alankar

State Bank of India versus Krishnaiah

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Fraternity Interactive Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Talwar Auto Garages Private Limited

State Bank of India versus M S. Datta Filling Station

Bank of India versus M/S. Vijaya Enterprises