Allowed

State Bank of India v. Saanvi Ssi

DRT26 Sept 2024OA/111/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Origin Application filed by the State Bank of India for recovery of dues from a borrower and proprietor, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the application. The court held that the defendants were jointly and severally liable despite contentions regarding credit failures and RBI guideline deviations.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay total sum of Rs.23,57,509/- with interest, less the admitted partial payment; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated movables and properties.

State Bank of India versus Saanvi Ssi — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 26rH DAy oF SEPTEMB ER, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.111 OF 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Assets Recovery Management Branch. (sAMB-2), 1-8-563/1, 1't ftoor, Opp.Sandhya Theatre, RTC,.X,; roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SAANVI SSI, Represented by its proprietor NirniSmitha, Major, R/o H. No. 1-4 -460/ A, Satyanagar, Maruthinagar, kothapet, Saroornagar - 500 035.

¶9

Nirnismitha, major, Proprietor of SAANVI SSI, R/o H.No.1-4-460lA, Satya Maruthinagar, kothapet, Saroornagar - 500 035.

¶10

Counsel for the parties:

¶11

For the Applicant

¶12

For defendants No.1 and

¶13

J 26stPmo"(
W,r-*-#
a na raya na
Sri Sita Rama Rao Kulkarni

¶14

(OA. No.111/2022)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(Amended vide memo dated 19.09.2024)

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.23,57,509/_ (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Nine only) i.e., a sum of Rs.22,09,422l- under term loan with interest @ 9.90% p.a and a sum of Rs.1,4g,087/- under cash credit with interest @9.65% p'a with monthry rests from date of firing of oA tiil the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated assets as described in the schedule to OA.

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant no.2 is the proprietor of defendant no.1 firm availed term loan of Rs.20.00 lakhs and cash credit loan of Rs.2.00 lakhs for business purpose vide letter of arrangement dated 20.02.202L. The defendants executed Agreement of loan cum hypothecation on 20.02.2021 in favour of the bank. The defendants made some repayments and the last payment made in term loan account for a sum of Rs.30,000 l- on 27.LO.2O2| and for CC loan account a sum of Rs.30,000/- on 27. The aforesaid loan limits were duly secured by hy property more fully described in the schedule 6n. It is submitted by th s#[Q[", fi Defendants having availed the said up the

¶19

(oA. No.111/2022 )

¶20

repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA and issued legal notice dated 04.04.2022. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants isRs.23,57,5o9l_ (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Nine only) i.e., a sum of Rs.22,09,422l- under term loan with interest @ 9.90olo p.a and a sum of Rs.1,48,087/- under cash credit with interest @9.65% p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OAtill realization. Hence the OA.

¶21

Defendants No.1 and 2 filed Written statement. It is admitted that the defendants avaired roan under pMEGp scheme and was regurar in repaying the EMI's. It is contended that the defendants requested applicant bank for restructuring of loan and paid a sum of Rs'3,50,000/- for regurarization. It is further contended that the Applicant bank took signatures on brank printed forms. Hence prayed to dismiss the OA.

¶22

Durlng the course of trial on beh,AEFaF*Egljcant Bank, Sri Ch. *1." d through him :1T:":':: .'""n-" "ffi marked 6 documents as er.d;i"i,% A.6. i".=rn" njplbnt bank fited part satisraction memo statin:[ li., 3r,Ejfif,n]"Tr oA ,r defenda nts paid a sum of Rs.9,28,447 /- towards term toan"ind cash credit roan

¶23

(oA. No.111/2022)

¶24

accounts. Defendant no.2examined herself as DW.1 and she filed

¶25

Ex.B.1 to B.37.

¶26

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶27

Heard the arguments.

¶28

Now, the points that arise for consideration are;

¶29

i) whether the Appricant Bank has proved its crarm as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶30

ii) To what relief ?

¶31

Point No.i):

¶32

The Defendants are not disputing the fact that they availed various credit facirities from the Appricant bank but their contention is that the Applicant bank failed to give credits to the loan account despite of substantial payments and that the Applicant has crassified the account as NpA without foilowing the RBI guidelines. AW.1 who is working as Branch Manager of Applicant Bank exhibited documents A.1 to A.6. Even though AW.1 is cross examined by counsel for Defendants, nothing is elicited to disprove the contention of the Applicant. Various documents exhibited by the AW.1 clearly indicates that defendants contention that not followed the RBI guidetines is not tenilffi

¶33

¶34

(OA.No.t1,7/20221

¶35

As per the evidence of AW.1 and documents exhibited by him it is very clear that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA amount. The evidence of DW.1 is no way helpful to establish the defense of the defendants. Hence the applicant bank is entitred to craim the oA amount from defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants No.1 and 2.

¶36

point No.ii)

¶37

9' In the resurt, the present originar apprication is ailowed with costs as under:

¶38

The Defendants No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to Applicant Bank a total sum Rs.23,57,5O9l_ (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Nine only) i.e., a sum of Rs.22,09,422l_ under term loan with interest @ 9.90% p.a and a sum of R;.L,4B,OB7/_ under cash credit with interest @9.650lo p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realizationLESS a sum of Rs.9,2g,447/- paid by defendants.

¶39

10.
The applicant bank is e
aga inst the
hypothecated movables as tn edule
-1 26SEP ,W *
,W,*r#

¶40

(oA.No.L17/2022)

¶41

the Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

t4. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶45

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶46

(Dictated to the P A , transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of Sept, 2024)

¶47

sd/-

¶48

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶49

r/
'ip

:,
\ih,

¶50

n*1f;,5;?;;"oo

State Bank of India v. Saanvi Ssi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Saanvi Ssi

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Grocrate Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Loknadh Pharmacy and General Stores

Ms Sona Fashions Rep by its Proprietor Mr S Sudhir Kumar versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Sri. Jawaharlal Gogoluthu

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Nitin Infra Projects

Manoj Kumar N versus Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited