Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Santhosh Enterprises

DRT21 Dec 2023OA/382/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a dispositional order in an Original Application under the RDBFI Act where the Respondents remained ex-parte. The Bench held that the evidence submitted by the bank clinched its claim, rendering the respondents jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability to pay Rs. 97,78,756/- with interest, entitlement to execute against proceeds, and grant of costs with a Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Santhosh Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 21St DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SH. MMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.). M.A_ PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

Originat Apptication No: 3A2 OF 2022

¶4

State Bank of India, Nacharam SME Branch, Opp: NTR Horticulture bine Studio, Nacharam Main Road. Nacharam, Hyderabad-5OOOi6. Rep. by its Assistant General Manager.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

lvl,/s. Santhosh EnterDrises. Rep. by its^prop: Mr. y.Santhosh, D.No.7-g/3t/32A, Raghavendra Nagar, Nacharam, f'ledchal-Matakajgiri District. Hyderabad-5OOO7E.

¶8

Mr. Y_ela.santhosh, S/o. Sri. yadagiri, R/o. D.No. 7-8/37/32 A, Raghavenda Nagar, Nacharam. Medchal -Matakajgiri District. Hyderabad-5OOO7 6.

¶9

M/s. Sri^padmavathi Road Lines, Rep. by its^prop. Mr. Nettimi Dharani Kumar, R/o. Akkireddypatem, Near B.p.^petroleum Bunk, N.H. 5, B.H.p.V^post, Vishakhapatnam-5300 12.

¶10

...Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant

¶12

Defendants

¶13

; lvlr. Y.Venkataramana

: Exparte NrO

oA.NO.382/2022

:: ORDER::

The^{Applicant Bank} from^filed the^{the defendants are presentOA for the jointly recovery a and severallysum} "l*..rr,rr,ruuU *t,n *,r."^{interest@ 10'80o/op a' and also penal interest at} ,r" ,roa^{the date applicationtill the date of realization along} with^costs.

¶18

Summons^{servedon D1 & 2 throughpaPer publication'whereas} summons^{of D3 served They were set exparteon 13'10'2022} as called^{absent and no representatlon'}

¶19

The Applicant^{Bank examinedA'G' Sathya Prasad' Manager'as} ew-r'ana^{marked 9 documentsthrough him as Ex' A 1 to Ex'} A.9.

¶20

Ld.^{counselfor the ApplicantBank reportedorders may be}

¶21

purr"O on merits^{Perusedthe material placed on record'}

¶22

The^{polntthat arisesfor considerationis:-}

¶23

Whether^{the AppticantBankis entitled} fotr the^{ctaim made in the OA against} the Defendants?

¶24

As stated^{supra,the Defendantsremainedex-parteThe} Evidence^{Affidavlt coupled lvith the recitals in the documents} viz., Exs.^{A.1 to A'9 markedon behalfof the ApplicantBank} clinches^{the claim of the ApplicantBankagainst the Oefendants'} Hence, I^{hold that the Defendants are jointlyand severally liable} to^{pay the oA claim to the Applicant Bankwlu f#'elerest} and costs. [.,/^{)'tox>:' '}

¶25

oa.No3a2l2o22

¶26

In the result, the^present Original^{ApplicationNo 382/2022is} allowed as under: -

¶27

i) The Defendants are^jointly and severally liable to^pay to the Applicant Bank a sum^of Rs.97,78,756/- with future interest @ 10.80o/o p.a. slmple from the date^of application till the date of realization;

¶28

il) the applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the person and^propertles of defendants for realization of its dues; and

¶29

iii) the applicant bank is entltled for the costs.

¶30

The Appllcant Bank is dlrected to file Cost Memo within^{2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶32

Communicate a copy of this order to^{the partiesconcerned.} (Dictated to the steno, signed and^pronounced bY me in the open court on^this the^21't Day ot December,2023) .

¶33

Ow* (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. M/S. Santhosh Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Santhosh Enterprises

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

Canara Bank versus M/s Li- Style

Canara Bank versus Messers Yuvaraj Trading

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Shriram Trading

Tilak Raj Pathak versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank versus Sh. Rajender Singh

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Jul Bricks Industry