Allowed

State Bank of India v. Saanvi Ssi

DRT9 Sept 2024OA/111/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India against two defendants for recovery of dues amounting to Rs. 23.57 lakhs comprising term loan and cash credit with interest, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 23,57,509/- with interest. Applicant allowed to proceed against hypothecated movables and personal properties of defendants for realization.

State Bank of India versus Saanvi Ssi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrs rHE^grH DAy oF sEprEMBER, zo24

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶4

OA.No.111 OF 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

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

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

SAANVI SSI,

¶10

Represented by its Proprietor Nirnismitha, Major,

¶11

R/o H. No. 1-4 -460 / A, Satyanagar, Maruthinagar, kothapet,

¶12

Saroornagar - 500 035.

¶13

NirniSmitha, major,

¶14

Proprietor of SAANVI SSI, R/o H. No. 1-4 -460 / A, Satyanagar, Maruthinagar, kothapet, Saroornagar - 500 035.

¶15

Defendants

¶16

Counsel for the Parties:

¶17

For the Applicant

¶18

For defenda

¶19

Sri P.V. Satyanarayana

¶20

Sri Sita Rama Rao Kulkarni

; 0esErrpg
$,td.;1

(oA. No.111/2022)

ORDER

1' The Applicant Bank fired 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 @ 9.90olo p.a and a sum of Rs.1,48,0g7/- under cash credit with interest @9.65% p.a with monthry rests from date of firing of oA ti[ the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated assets as described in the schedule to OA,

¶25

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant no.2 is the proprietor of defendant no'1 firm avaired term roan of Rs.20.00 rakhs and cash credit roan of Rs'2'00 rakhs for business purpose vide retter 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/_ on 27.t0.202L and for CC loan account a sum of Rs.30,000/_ on 27.LO.2OZI. The aforesaid loan limits were duly secured by hypothecation of movable property more fully described in the schedule to OA.

¶26

bank that the Defendants having availed the said failed to keep up the repayment sched ,3 u'fTtErFm",,_I classified as NpA and -Vr';'r)v;1..-:.1

¶27

(oA.No.111/2022)

¶28

issued legal notice dated 04.04.2022. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regurarized the account, and did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants isRs.23,57,5o9/_ (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Nine only) i.e., a sum ot Rs.22,O9,422l- under term loan with interest @ 9.90olo p.a and a sum of Rs.1,48,0g7/- under cash credit with interest @9.65010 p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of oAtill realization. Hence the OA.

¶29

2' Defendants No'1 and 2 fired 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 blank printed forms. Hence prayed to dismiss the OA.

¶30

During the course of trial on behalf of Applicant Bank, Sri Ch. Raghavendra Rao, Manager is examined as AW.1 and through him marked 6 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.6. Defentant no.2examined herself as DW.1 and

¶31

a: .4 'i i,+,

¶32

I have perused the

¶33

3 ' .:' ,.' i'il'-. ." ,,, ,,4i.

¶34

(OA.No.111/2022)

¶35

Heard the arguments.

¶36

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶37

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

¶38

ii) To what relief ?

¶39

Point No.i):

¶40

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 classified the account as NpA without folrowing the RBI guidelines. AW.1 who is working as Branch Manager of Applicant Bank exhibited documents A.1 to 4.6. Even though AW.1 is cross examined by counsel for Defendants, nothing is elicited to disprove the contention of the Appricant. various documents exhibited by the AW.1 clearly indicates that defendants contention that Appricant Bank chargednot foilowed the RBI guidelines is not tenable.

¶41

B. As per the evidence of AW.1 and documents exhibited by him it is very clear that the defendants are jointry and severaily riabre to pay the OA amo nce of DW.1 is no way helpful to establish the nts. Hence the applicant :.1 bank is ent claim the OA nt from defendants 1 and t^{g c:r420t}

¶42

(oA.No.111/2022)

¶43

Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants No.1 and 2.

¶44

Point No.ii)

¶45

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

¶46

The Defendants No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to Applicant Bank a total sum Rs.23,57,5O9/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Fafty 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.1,48,097/- under cash .credit with interest @9.650lo p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization.

¶47

¶48

The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables as described in schedule to OA.

¶49

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

¶50

The Applicant Bank the OA. 0^g S:P l[il

¶51

(OA.No.111/2022)

¶52

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

¶53

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶54

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶55

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of Sept, 2024)

¶56

sdl-

¶57

(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶58

"O(.
,k'
: ossiPzor
!i r-
9. .." .^ .::.
,.'',.n.,{.,\8i;r;&Z

¶59

TRUE"COPX [\e186 N*^Rcglstar - DRr.I,^HYDERNBAU.

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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of Maharashtra versus Medfin Pharma Services Pvt. Ptd

State Bank of India versus Sri Raja Rajeshwari Agencies

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Laxmi Narasimha Poultry

Ms Amrit Enterprises versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Shreyans Enterprises

M/s.Mallikarjuna Purified Water Plant versus State Bank of India