Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Peddi Pavani

DRT5 Feb 2024OA/124/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of a defaulting loan secured by hypothecation and mortgage, directing joint and several liability on defendants with future interest and permission to proceed against properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable for Rs.53,39,161/- plus future interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated property and defendant assets.

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Peddi Pavani — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs THE srH DAy oF FEBRuARr,2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER OA.No.124 ot 2O2g

¶3

Between:

¶4

State Bank of India, ARMB branch, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad Represented by its Chief Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Mrs^peddipavani,

¶8

Proprietor of M/s. Laxmi Distributors, female, aged major, 3-2-I09/I, Kamala Nehru colony, Armoor, Nizamabad district.

¶9

Mr.GaddamChinnaBojanna, s/o Mr. ChinnaRajanna,

¶10

H.No.7-31, village pipri, Armoormandal, Nizamabad dist.

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the parties:

¶13

For the Applicant

¶14

For the Defendant No.1

¶15

Sri A.M. Kiran Kumar

¶16

Exparte

¶17

Defendant no.
2L.-'^;,'- Sri R. Nagarjuna Reddy
/- ,i/ d;4.:ts - - :-:.-. '
/ .- :'-
,. . :j,
1, .i .; :"
[ : ii'] ?--zq

¶18

(oA.No.t24/20231

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.53,39,161/- (Rupees Fifty Three Lakhs Thirty Nine thousand One hundred and Sixty one only) with future interest @ 17.25o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of oA till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movablesand mortgaged property as described in the schedule^..1 & 2" to OA.

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is proprietor of M/s. Laxmi Distributors who availed cash credit limit of Rs.49 lakhs for business. The said facility was secured by hypothecation of assets and book debts of defendant no.1 business. Defendant no.1 executed letter of arrangement, agreement of loan cum hypothecation on 19,05.2020. Defendant no.2 stood as guarantor and executed guarantee agreement for the loan availed by defendant no,1 on 19.05.2020. The cash credit limit availed by defendant no.1 was secured by equitable mortgage of application schedule property belonging to defendant no.2. The defendant no.2 deposited original documents of title deed bearing no.1637/20L3 with an intention to create equitable mortgage for it loan by deposit of title ...j...;..-.,".,,.:--l^{iis:r,,-,.:r:,)} deeds and registered as document,ffo.ZSb\ 0 in the office of Sub-

¶22

,.,} ,"qsy

¶23

(oA.No.124l2023)

¶24

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facility and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on 29.06.2022. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the applicant bank issued demand notice dated 30.06.2022 and possession notice dated t4.09.2022 but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants isRs.53,39,161/- (Rupees Fifty Three Lakhs Thirty Nine thousand One hundred and Sixty one only) with future interest @ L7.25o/o p.awith monthly rests from date of OA till realization. Hence the OA.

¶25

The Defendant No.2 filed written statement and denied the averments stated in the OA. It is contended that the defendant no.2 was farmer by profession and illiterate and was residing in the same house since 20 years. Defendant no.2 denied about execution of guarantee agreement on 19.05.2020 to secure the loan. It is further denied that no original documents were deposited with the Applicant bank. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶26

The ApplicantApplicant

¶27

The ApplicantApplicant filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in AW.1 and through her

¶28

(oA.No.12412023)

¶29

marked 10 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.10. Defendant no.2 examined himself as DW.1 but no documents produced by him.

¶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

ii) To what relief ?

¶34

Point No.i):

¶35

6' AW.1 whowas examined on beharf of the Appricant have crearry deposed the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.1O exhibited by the Appticant bank clearty establish the liability of the defendants.

¶36

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant no.2 examined himserf as DW.1, his evidence is in noway helpful to him. The defendant No.2 having taken the prea that the applicant bank obtained his signatures on brank forms, faired to place any substantiar proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents executed by clear that all the relevant documents are ex in the normal course of transaction. The '$"oTtr tW,ryr" uely contended that 'i I .)

¶37

(oA. No.12412023)

¶38

particulars made in the oA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants are liable to pay the OA claim. Even the particulars of other payments if any made by the defendants are not furnished by them. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the oA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶39

Point No,ii)

¶40

B. In the result, the present originar apprication is ailowed with costs as under:

¶41

i) The Defendants are joinuy and severa[y riabre to Appricant Bank a total sum of Rs.53,39,161/- (Rupees Fifty Three Lakhs Thirty Nine thousand One hundred and Sixty one only) with future interest @ t7.25o/o p.a from date of OA till realization.

¶42

ii) The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated property as described in

¶43

schedules "1

¶44

nqFrB?nro *
-,t4
itj. ,tf .:t .\i^..i

¶45

(OA.No.124l2023)

¶46

iii) the Appricant Bank is arso entired to proceec, against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶50

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶51

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of Feb,2O24)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

&o"u
^ 0 5 rrB 202{
ifT
Wr;W

¶56

ii'fr":w ,i,r',ffi{^

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Peddi Pavani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Peddi Pavani

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

Similar cases

Indian Bank versus Mrs. N. Visalakshi

State Bank of India versus M/S Crescent Jewellers

Tummala Anitha versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Canara Bank versus M/S. Shiva Ganga Water Plant

Sri Gunda Gangadhar Goud versus Canara Bank

Bank of India versus M/S. Bhadrakali Industries