Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Global Steel Traders

DRT3 Nov 2023OA/96/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order admits an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues worth approximately Rs. 89.42 Lakhs from a corporate borrower and a guarantor who failed to repay CC and GECL loans. The tribunal held the bank entitled to the claim.

What did the court decide?

The defendants ordered to pay Rs. 89,42,253/- with interest; applicant bank entitled to realize dues from hypothecated movables and properties of defendants; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Global Steel Traders — DRT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER'2023

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.96 ot 2023

¶5

Between :

¶6

State Bank of India, Stre_ssed Assets Recovery Branch, 2"o floor, TSRTC Bus Terminal complex (commuter Amenity Centre), Koti, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1, M/s. Global Steel Traders Represented by its proprietor, Abdul Hazi Mohammad, Major, fgte,^{ReSd office at t5_t_625/L,} NTR Bypass road, Khanapuram^' Haveli, Khammam _ 507 OO3.

¶10

Also at

¶11

Administrative office at Plot no.125, IDA yellandu road, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam - 507 OO2.

¶12

Mr. Abdul Hazi Mohammad,

¶13

Major, male, flat no.404 B Block, 4"' floor, Bommarillu apartments, Bypass road, Khammam - 507 0

¶14

Defendants
A 3 NCrl tnt

¶15

(oA.No.96/2023)

¶16

Counsel for the^parties:

¶17

For the Applicant

¶18

For the Defendants

¶19

Sri P.V. Satyanarayana

¶20

Expa rte

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.99,42,2S3,/_ (Rupees Eighty Nine Lakhs Forty two thousand Two hundred and Fifty three only) i.e., a sum of Rs.g3,94,Bg3/_ under CC loan limit with interest @ I3.7 5o/o p.a with monthly rests and a sum of Rs.5,47,370/- under GECL loan limit with interest @ 9.25% p.a with monthly rests from date of apprication tiil the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶23

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that the defendant No.2 is the proprietor of 1't defendant company availed cash credit of Rs.75.00 rakhs on 27.o8.2o2o. Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor and executed guarantee agreement for due repayment of outstanding liability. Defendants 1 & 2 executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 27.08.2020. Subsequently, the CC li and applicant bank sanctioned GECL limit of To secure due repayment

¶24

(oA. No.96/2023)

¶25

of outstanding riabirity, the defendants 1 & 2 executed supprementar agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 31.03.2022. After availing the roan facirities, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA on 28.09.2022 and issued legal notice dated t7.02.2023. Inspite of severar requests and demands, the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence th is OA.

¶26

Defendants 1 & 2 called absent and set exparte on 0g.09.2023,

¶27

Sri Dhanunjaya panda, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined

¶28

himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked

¶29

as Ex.A.1 to A.11.

¶30

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶31

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶32

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as

¶33

prayed for?

¶34

7' Defendants called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, Tlqt?lpr-tnu Appticant Bank was examined and he exhibited relev .A1 to A.11. In view of the above, I hold that blished their claim made r! -,'. [] :l lisr {- Sr, fu.*,,

¶35

(oA.No.96/2023)

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Appllcant Bank a total sum of Rs.89,42,253/_ (Rupees Eighty Nine Lakhs Forty two thousand Two hundred and Fifty three only) i.e., a sum of Rs.83,94,BB3/- under CC loan limit with interest @ 13.75olo p.a and a sum of Rs.5,47,37O/_ under GECL loan limit with interest @ 9.250/o p.a from date of apprication tiil the date of rearization ;

¶39

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed aga inst the hypothecated

¶40

movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶41

the Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and

¶42

properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm

¶43

towards realization of the debt due.

¶44

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

¶45

The Applicant shall file a receipt of order.

¶46

(oA.No.96/2023)

¶47

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶48

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶49

(Dictated to the P'A', transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3.d day of Nov, 2023)

¶50

sd/_

¶51

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶52

%
o3lrou nn :
;
lj{ . ,-
W**#

¶53

TRIJE COPY DRT-r, ^ntffi;r,x'rogamnb.

State Bank of India v. M/S. Global Steel Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Global Steel Traders

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

State Bank of India versus M/S. Rekha Automotives

Bank of Baroda versus Mr. Kola Santosh

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S Dynamic Cables

State Bank of India versus Mrs/Ms. Dabiikar Pranitha

State Bank of India versus Sri. Vadluri Sambaiah

State Bank of India versus Smt. Shobha Rani