Allowed

State Bank of India v. M S. Datta Filling Station

DRT19 Jun 2023OA/404/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by State Bank of India against three defendants for recovery of a loan of Rs. 90.93 lakhs. The bank proved its case ex-parte, and the Tribunal ordered payment of principal, interest, costs, and authorized enforcement against mortgaged and hypothecated properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 90,93,540 plus interest at 9.5% p.a. from 04.02.2022 till realization, costs of the OA, and proceed against mortgaged/hypothecated properties.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE'2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.4O4 ot 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 4-7-I74t, Turrebaz khan road, Esamiya Bazaar, Koti, Hyderabad, Telangana-95. Represented by its authorised officer

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Datta Filling Station, Represented by its Proprietor Vangaveeti Nagendra, S/o Vangaveeti Srinivasa rao, Aged about 54 yrs, male, Occ: business, office: sy.no.25O/E2/ 7, Dhammaigudem village, Tirumalaya Palem mandal, Khammam,

¶9

Telangana - 507 183

¶10

Sri Vangaveeti Nagendra, s/o Vangaveeti Srin ivasa rao, male, aged about 54 yrs, occ: business, R/o H.No.2-5-266, Opp APGVB Bank, PSR road, m, Telangana - 507 003.

¶11

'/& Road, ,*., ramina Vikas Bank,

¶12

(OA.No.404/2022)

¶13

Khammam (Rural), Gandhichowk, Khammam, Telangana -507 OO3.

¶14

Smt Vangaveeti Ranga Kumari, w/o Vangaveeti Nagender, female, aged about 52 yrs, occ: business, r/o H.No.2-5-266, Opp APGVB Bank,^pSR road, Khammam, Telangana - 507 OO3.

¶15

Also at

¶16

H.No.2-5-336,^pSR Road, Near Nagarjuna Gramina Vikas Bank, Khammam (Rural), Gandhichowk, Khammam, Telangana -507 OO3.

¶17

Defenda nts

¶18

Counsel for the^parties:

¶19

For the Applicant

¶20

For the Defendants

¶21

Smt Taranglni Pisipati Ex pa rte

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs,gO,93,S4Ol_ (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Ninety three thousand Five hundred and forty only) i.e., a sum of Rs.72,34,869/- + Rs.6,32,035/- + Rs.12,26,636/_ with interest @ with monthly rests from 04.LL.2022 till realization and in of hypothecated and mortgaged properties as edule to OA.

¶24

rrg ;t{fl ffi

¶25

(oA.No.a1al2022)

¶26

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No,1 represented by its proprietor defendant no.2 (borrower) along with defendant no.3 (guarantor) availed cash credit for working capital of Rs.70.00 lakhs on 20.09.2018. The defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 20.09.2018 on creating hypothecation of petroleum and diesel and receivables as described in schedule A property, Defendants 2 & 3 executed guarantee agreement dated 02.06.2020 agreeing for repayment of principal along with interest. The defendant no.3 also executed declaration cum undertaking dated 02,06.2020. subsequently the defendants availed Rs,7.40 lakhs towards GECL limit and additional limit of Rs.12.00 lakhs as GECL-Ext vide letter of arrangement dated 10.12.2027. Defendnat no.3 also executed letter of confirmation for creation of mortgage by deposit of tiile deeds dated 25.09.2018 and created mortgage in respect of schedule property as described schedule B to OA. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 29.08.2022 and issued demand notice dated 08.09.2022. Inspite of several requests and d.er.nandsi'thg.,defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.^{- ,,1} : l'fi i; '^" 1 B^{,ii:il 'lMl} +^,:

¶27

(oA. No.404/2022)

¶28

? Defendants were called absent and set exparte on 28.O4.2023.

¶29

Shri A. Satya Prasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to 4.22.

¶30

tr Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶31

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

¶32

The defendants were 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.22. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶33

B. in the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶34

9"are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant

¶35

ii*/*' Bank ... a 90,93,54O/(Rupees Ninety Lakhs Ninety three * ,! q^t,llgrm3d hundred and forty only) i.e., a sum of 4

¶36

(oA.No.404/2022)

¶37

Rs.72,34,869/- + Rs.6,32,035/- + Rs.12,26,636/- with interest @

¶38

9.50%p.a from 04.Lt.2022 till the date of realization.

¶39

i) The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated and mortgaged properties as described in Schedule to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶40

ii) the Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶44

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶45

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1gth day of June, 2023)

¶46

sdl -

¶47

(G. GoPICHAND)
TJtt E COPY
// lT PRESIDINGOFFICER
/J' U-^< -u &^,,-.t.t
,#:i;i3lilii"^, 0 f * / u,s

¶48

1 g i"Jl{ 2m
-jl.

State Bank of India v. M S. Datta Filling Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M S. Datta Filling Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Talwar Auto Garages Private Limited

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

Bank of India versus M/S. Rayalas Alankar

Bank of India versus M/S. Vijaya Enterprises

Karur Vysya Bank versus M S Splendor Insulated Products

Karur Vysya Bank versus M S Atop Copper Wires