Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Parsi Sivayya and Co.

DRT23 Nov 2023OA/387/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of outstanding loan amounts and interest against a partnership firm and its guarantors, upholding the bank's evidence and rejecting the defendants' submissions.

What did the court decide?

Declaratory that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the principal and interest; recovery certificate issued against movable and immovable properties and persons.

State Bank of India versus M/S Parsi Sivayya and Co. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶3

OA.No.387 oJ 2022

¶4

Between :

¶5

State Bank of India, Asset Recovery Management Bra nch, 1-8-563/1, RTC Cross Roads, Opp sandhya Theatre, 1't floor, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 5OO O2O Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Parsi Sivayya & Co., A partnership firm, Represented by its pa rtner Mr. Parsi Mahesh Kumar,

¶9

H.No.7-B-716, Gandhi gunj,

¶10

Nizamabad - 503 OO1.

¶11

Mr. Parsi Mahesh Kumar, s/o Parsi Rajasekhar, aged 48 years, male, R/o H.No.7-B-23, Gandhi Gunj, Nizama bad - 503 001.

¶12

Mrs. P. Radhika, w/o Sri P. Mahesh Kumar, aged 42 years, female,

¶13

Gandhi Gunj, Nizamabad -
Defenda nts
4r
iP
23

¶14

(oA. No,387l2022)

¶15

Counsel for the Pa rties:

¶16

For the Applicant

¶17

Sri C. Prabhakar

¶18

For the Defendants No.1to

¶19

Sri G. Srinivas

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.3t42t52,249,/_ (Rupees Three Crores Forty two lakhs Fifty two thousand Two hundred and Forty Eight only) i.e., a sum of Rs.2,28,75,526/_ under loan account no.62277917452 with further interest @ 16.65% p.a with monthly rests ; a sum of Rs.7l,72,868/_ under loan A/c. No.39768667508 with further interest @ 9.25olo with monthly rests and a sum of Rs.42,03,854/- under loan A/c No.40610707484 with interest @ 9.250lo p.a with monthry rests from date of apprication tiil the date of realization and in default for sare of schedure mentioned hypothecated movabres and mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1is a partnership firm represented by partner and defendants 2 & 3 (guarantors) vide partnership deed dated 31.0-3lOt4.' i11-,"6sfendants availed OD mortgage loan of Rs.90. on

¶23

(oA. No.387/2022)

¶24

31.03.2013. To secure due repayment, the defendant no.1 hypothecated all its movable assets fully described under OA schedule

¶25

property - I. Defendant no.1 firm being mortgagor created equitable mortgage on 30,03.2073 in respect of oA schedule property-Il Thereafter the Defendant no.1 partner executed gift settlement deed no.3492/2o14 dated 16.04.2014 and gifted oA schedule property-Il in favour of defendant no.2. Defendant no.2 created equitable mortgage in respect of schedule property III. The Applicant bank renewed cash credit (wHR) loan of Rs.500.00 lakhs and FBWC loan of Rs.100.00 lakhs on 24.08 .2077. Defendants 2 & 3 executed SME-3 guarantee agreement dated 24.o8.2017. During covid-19 period, the Applicant bank sanctioned GECL loan of Rs.B2,3t,9OO/- through their offer letter dated 28.05.2020.

¶26

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NPA and issued legal notice dated 21.10.2022. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same, The total claim of Applicant against defendants is Rs.3r42F2248/- (Rupees Three crores Forty two

¶27

lakhs Fifty two

¶28

undred and Forty Eight only) i.e.,

¶29

a sum of Rs.2, account no.622779L7452 with ? 3 fffi )n71

¶30

(OA. No.387/2022)

¶31

further interest @ 16.650lo p.a with monthly rests ; a sum of Rs.7l,72,868l- under loan A/c. No.39768667508 with further interest @ 9.25olo with monthly rests and a sum of Rs.42,03,g54l_ under loan A/c No.40610707484 with interest @ 9.25olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till realization, Hence the OA.

¶32

2' The Defendants No. 1to 3 fired written statement and denied ail the averments made in oA. The defendants admitted that they avaired the oD mortgage roan of Rs.90.00 rakhs and Rs.4.00 crores as demand roan I & II on 31.03.2013. The defendants admitted the creation of equitable mortgage in respect of OA schedule properties and hypothecation of movabres. It is denied that rate of interest is excessive and usurious and not in pursuance of RBI guiderines. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶33

3' The Applicant Bank in support of its craim, fired evidence affidavit dury sworn in by Sri D. Naga prasad, Branch Manager as AW,1 and through him marked 38 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.38. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their beharf in support of their contentions and also did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to

¶34

(OA. No,387/2022)

¶35

Heard both sides.

¶36

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶37

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶38

i) whether the Appricant Bank has proved its craim as made in oA against the defendants 1 to 3 ?

¶39

ii) To what relief ?

¶40

Point No.i):

¶41

As per the documents fired by the Appricant Bank and arso as per the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement, it is very clear that the defendants have avaired roan from the Appricant Bank, but failed to repay the amount. Ail the amounts paid by the defendants are clearry mentioned in the statement of account fired by Appricant Bank. The defendants have not placed any material documents to show their bonafides for establishing their contentions.

¶42

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their riabirity is ress than the amount mentioned in the oA and no supporting documents fired for estabrishing that they have not created the mortgage U;41€-i;-s!r,ctl'Ciitifmrtun.es, the evidence of it-^':ir';: .. '.",'tl" AW.1 coupred with recita{*$e., y3r,i.t|,fi( unchalensed and

¶43

(OA. No.387/2022)

¶44

unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶45

Point No.ii)

¶46

In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as u nde r:

¶47

i) The Defendants 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to Applicant Bank a total sum Rs.3,42t52,248l- (Rupees Three Crores Forty two lakhs Fifty two thousand Two hundred and Forty Eight only) i.e., a sum of Rs.2,28,75,526l- under loan account no.62277917452 with further interest @ 16.65% p.a ; a sum of Rs.71,72,868/- under loan A/c. No.39768667508 with further interest @ 9.25olo and a sum of Rs.42,03,854/- under loan A/c No.40610707484 with interest @ 9.25o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realizatton.

¶48

ii) The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the schedule mentioned hypothecated movables and mortgaged properties for recovery of the debt due.

¶49

iii) the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendan -3^{and propertiesof defendant}

¶50

no.1 firm towards

¶51

(oA.No.381/2022)

¶52

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

¶53

v) The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶54

of receipt oF order.

¶55

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶56

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶57

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23.d day of Nov, 2023)

¶58

sd/(G. GOPtcHAND)

¶59

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶60

tt*'
ffi,qNi', A
d */' 2Sti|,lunn
:;? q,';ff:yb -
r -;- ,' \i /
r'rF'-t.x .-Q.Y7 ,-iii,;f:#";ffilz
\i;;;rt&Z

State Bank of India v. M/S Parsi Sivayya and Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Parsi Sivayya and Co.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of India versus Mr. Ramesh Gollapelly

State Bank of India versus Sri. Kotte Tirupathi

Sri Mansoor Ahmed versus Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Ms Pocharam Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus Idbi Bank & Others

Indian Bank versus M/S. Sri Guru Charan Enterprises

State Bank of India versus M/S. Srinivasa Communications and Services

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Bank of India versus Mr. Ramesh Gollapelly

State Bank of India versus Sri. Kotte Tirupathi

Sri Mansoor Ahmed versus Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Ms Pocharam Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus Idbi Bank &amp; Others

Indian Bank versus M/S. Sri Guru Charan Enterprises

State Bank of India versus M/S. Srinivasa Communications and Services

Ms Pocharam Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus Idbi Bank & Others