Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Msp Filling Station

DRT9 Jul 2024OA/119/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by the State Bank of India against M/s. MSP Filling Station for recovery of a debt of Rs. 25,08,568 along with future interest and costs. The tribunal observed that the bank substantiated its claim through documentary evidence and allowed recovery from hypothecated movables, person, and properties of the defendant.

What did the court decide?

The defendant is liable to pay Rs. 6,60,777 with future interest at 12.15% p.a. on the term loan and Rs. 18,47,791 with future interest at 10% p.a. on the CC loan. The applicant is entitled to enforce security against hypothecated movables and defendant's properties. Recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Msp Filling Station — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 9THDAY OF JULY' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.119 of 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, SARB-II,mChikkadpally, Hyderabad, Telangana' State Rep by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. MSP Filling Station, Represented by its proprietor Mr. MahenderPabbe, 9-20, Indranagar colony, Marpally Kalan Village, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy dist.

¶10

Also

¶11

S. No.69/EEl 1Al 1, Navalga village, Basheerabad Mandal, Vikarabad district.

¶12

Defendant

¶13

Counsel for the Pa rties:

¶14

For the Applicant For the Defendant

¶15

: Sri A.M. Kiran Kumar : Exparte

¶16

ORDER

¶17

filed the present OA against Defendant for 76.rec ofa ;8, I,l, sum of Rs.25,08,568/- (Rupees Twenty Five * S+hrEisht rn nd Five hundred and Sixty Eight only) i.e.,

¶18

.,$N (:l

¶19

stqt aluaH^'6utpuelsgno aql reall lou plp luepua€p eqt i prueuap;i? \9 pue slsanbal lela^as 1o alrdsul^.saftlou pan uo VdN se lunof,f,e aq1 llrsse;c ol pautellsuof, seM lu rldd e a[]l e3ueq 'uorlcues Jo suJlel aq1 i(ldruoo ol peltpJ luepuaJap aql 'sarlr;roe; ueol aql 6ur;rene .rayy 'OZOZ.EO.VZ pelep luaLLla6ue:te JO^{rallel epr^ sLl)el} 0E'su Jo l!rull lf, leuotllppe^{palte^e} luepuelep aLlI '0ZOZ'90'LT palep lueuleatbe uorlecaqlodlq uno upol Jo luauuaa.r6e 'lueuraOuerre Jo Jallal^pelnf,axa luepuaJop aql^,upol t.uJeJ aJnoas ol_^'6102'80'ZI palep peap eseal lad se slqap )ooq pue ,(laurqceu '1ue;d {q parnles s! ueol uJJal ptes aql^'o1a slcnpo.rd uune;ol1ad Jo^{arols Jo} llas'aseqctnd^roJ sq)el OI'sU lo ueol urral^{paltp^p} oqM uorlels 6ul1t: aSn^'sl6 Jo lolar"rdo-r6 eql sr luepuelap leql selels )ueg luer;lddy aq1 'uorlecr;dde arll ut sluaLuJane aq1 .red sy^.Z

¶20

'vo o1 alnpeqls aLll

¶21

u! peqrJrsep se salqe^oLr.r palecaqlodAq Jo eles roJ llneJep ut pue luorlezrleal Jo alep aLll llll uo11ec1;dde Jo elep uror1 slsar ,{;qluouu qlrru^p'd o/oOI O JsereJur^{arnlnJqlrMueol} ff,;o lcadsa: ul -/I6L'Lb'BI'sU Jo ulns V (q l uorlezt;eal Jo alep

¶22

aql llll uollecgldde Jo alep r.lrorJ sJsar llqluoru qqrarr e'd o/oSI'ZI @ JSaraJUr^{ernlnJ q1M} ueol [!re];o lcadsat^q -ILLL'Og'g'sy 1o uns y (e

¶23

(rzoz16rroN Vo)

¶24

(OA.No.119/2024)

¶25

2 Defendant called absent and set exparte on 10.06.2024.

¶26

Shri B. Ramakrishna Prasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.12.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶28

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

¶29

Defendant 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.12. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendant and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶30

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

¶31

nt is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of

¶32

,'; /-^(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Eaght Thousand

¶33

0 I {l{,JB{,,'dI and Sixty Eight only) i.e.,

¶34

(oA.No.119 12024\

¶35

a) A sum of Rs.6,60,777/- in respect of term loan with future interest @ 12.15o/o p.afrom date of application till the date of realization;

¶36

b) A sum of Rs.LB,47,79t/- in respect of CC loan with future interest @ 10% p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶37

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶38

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶39

t2. The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶40

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

¶41

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶42

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned,

¶43

dr.^@*:a S$rt^ont of July, 2024) ,f#,

¶44

in the open

¶45

(G. GOPTCHAND) 1f$,f:Y'o-PRESIDING OFFICER 6pr7-ttyaERABeO,^otffi{rP.fl-'v'>u

State Bank of India v. M/S. Msp Filling Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Msp Filling Station

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

Canara Bank versus Sri Lambadi Gulab Singh

Canara Bank versus Sri Bassi Godhavari @ Godawari @ Godavari

Canara Bank versus Sri Bassi Bicha @ Bassy Bitchya @ Bassi Bitchya

State Bank of India versus Ark Logistics

Indian Bank versus Mrs. Voondinty Sampurna

Mr Nellore Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy versus Union Bank of India