Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ms Formart Infra Projects

DRT10 Feb 2023OA/46/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Dr. Rehabilitation Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by State Bank of India against four respondents. Finding the defendants failed to adduce evidence or cross-examine the bank's witness, the tribunal held the evidence unchallenged and ordered joint and several liability for the outstanding loan amount.

What did the court decide?

Joint and several liability for Rs.85,29,890/- with interest; entitlement to proceed against mortgaged property and hypothecated assets; issue of recovery certificate.

State Bank of India versus Ms Formart Infra Projects — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 1OTHDAY OF FEBRUARY,2023

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESTDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.46 of 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC bus terminal complex (Commuter Amenity centre), Koti, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Formart Infra Projects, Rep by its Managing partner, Sri N. Ramakrishna Rao, major, Flat no.1904, LH-15, lanco hills, Manikonda, Hyderabad - 500 089.

¶9

Sri Nekkalapudi Ramakrishna Rao, s/o N, Venkateswara Rao, major, R/o Flat no.1904, LH-15, lanco hills, Manikonda, Hyderabad - 500 089.

¶10

Mr. Nekkalapudi Annapurna, w/o Sri N. Ramakrishna Rao, major, R/oFlat no.1904, LH-15, lanco hills, Manikonda, Hyderabad - 500 089.

¶11

SriNekkalapudiVenkateswaraRao, s/o Pedda Venkata Ramaiah, major, R/o Flat no.1904, LH-15, lanco hills, Manikonda, Hyderabad - 500 089.

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

For the Applicant

¶14

For the Defendants No.1 to 4

¶15

Sri P.V. Satyanarayana

Sri N. Sankar Rao

(OA.No.46 of 2022)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.85,29,89O/- (Rupees Eighty Five Lakhs Twenty nine thousand Eight hundred and Ninety only) i.e., a sum of Rs.65,13,066/- under term loan with future interest @ 14.75o/o p.a and a sum of Rs.20,16,824l- with interest @ 7.40o/o^p.a for GECL loan with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged schedule property and hypothecated assets as described in the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants 2 & 3 are partners of defendant No.1 firm along with defendant no,4 availed credit loan facility for the business with a cash credit loan limit of Rs.1,20,00,000/- on 12.11.2018. To secure the repayment of outstanding liability, the defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation and guarantee agreement dated 12.11.2018. Defendant no.4 deposited the title deeds bearing Regd Sale deed No.303 of 2000 dated 15,02.2000 with an intention to create equitable mortgage of OA schedule property. Subsequently the defendants availed CC loan i.e., Guaranteed emergency Credit line i *'t[t..] ":p.eqlRs.24.oo e,.$ rakhs on 1.06.2020 and executed the defendants converted and

¶21

(OA.No.46 of 2022)

¶22

renewed the outstanding cash credit limit as term loan limit of Rs.62.0 lakhs and GECL loan limit of Rs.21.00 lakhs respectively on 28.L0.202L. To secure repayment of outstanding liability, the defendants 1 to 3 executed supplemental agreement of loan-cum_ hypothecation dated 28.10.2021 Defendants 2 to 4 executed guarantee agreement dated 28.10.202t and 4th defendant confirmed the earlier mortgage by deposit of title deeds dated 29.L0.202t.

¶23

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. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants has not regularized, and the Applicant bank issued several reminders but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants isRs.85,29,890/- (Rupees Eighty five lakhs Twenty nine thousand Eight hundred and Ninety only) with future interest @ t4.75o/op.a for CC loan and @ 7.40o/o p.a for GECL loan with monthly rests from date of application till realization. Hence the OA.

¶24

filed written statement. Disputing the claim of . did not chose to file evidence affidavit and

¶25

,dgcggqeffito & ntiate contentions as raised in their written re, the written statement filed by the defendants

¶26

(OA.No.46 of 2022)

¶27

is not relied on by this Tribunar whire deciding the matter in the

¶28

present O.A.

¶29

The Applicant Bank in support of its craim, fired evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Sri Ch. RaghavenderRao, Manager as AW.1 and through him marked 14 documents as Ex.A.l to A.21. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf in support of his contentions and also did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert his chief Evidence. Inspite of repeated adjournments, the defendants failed to file evidence Affidavit, hence the right of adducing Defendants Evidence Affidavit was closed on t3.L2.2022.

¶30

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶31

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶32

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶33

defendants filed written statement, in respect of OA claim, neither

¶34

any evidence on their behalf to substantiate their

¶35

¶36

(OA.No.45 of 2022)

¶37

contentions nor have chosen to cross examine AW,1. Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex.A.1 to A.21 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶38

Point No.ii)

¶39

In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶40

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.85,29,890/- (Rupees Eighty Five Lakhs Twenty nine thousand Eight hundred and Ninety only) i.e., a sum of Rs.65,13,066/- under term loan with future interest @ 74.75o/o p.a and a sum of Rs.20,16,824l- with interest @ 7.40o/o p.a for GECL loan from date of application till the date of realization.

¶41

ii) The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property and hypothecated assets as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶42

iii) also entitled to proceed against the person No.2 to 4 and properties of realization of the debt due.

¶43

to the costs of the OA.

¶44

(oA.No.46 of z02ll

¶45

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

¶46

B. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶47

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶48

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

¶49

sd/-

¶50

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶51

rRuFnc0Pv

¶52

*ffrwr;

State Bank of India v. Ms Formart Infra Projects

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ms Formart Infra Projects

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

Union Bank of India versus Mr Kothakapu Manjula

Union Bank of India versus Pavan Sai Plastic Traders

State Bank of India versus Messers Kedar Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Naresh

Canara Bank versus Sri .N. Surender

Punjab National Bank versus Ashok Kumar