Allowed

Indian Bank v. M/S. S.V. Logistics

DRT18 Jan 2024OA/127/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's recovery application against the borrowers. The court held that the bank established its claim for principal loans and interest, ordering joint and several liability and the right to realise hypothecated movable properties.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay total sum with interest; bank entitled to realise hypothecated properties; recovery certificate to be issued.

Indian Bank versus M/S. S.V. Logistics — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY'2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.t27 ot 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

Indian Bank, New Nallakunta Branch, 2-2- rt3o-24/ r/ at i., inian Road, Prasanthnagar, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad - 500 044. Represented by its Branch Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. S.V. Logistics, Represented by its proprietor, Sathigari Ravi Kumar, Male, Office at H.No.3-18-219, 3'd floor, flat no.3O1, Sai SakethNilayam,^pragathi Nagar, Near D-Mart,

¶9

Ramanthapur, Hyderabad - 5OO 013. 2. Sri Sathigari Ravi Kumar, s/o S. VeeraSwamy, aged about 47 years, occ: business, male, R/o H. No.2-2 -tBS/ 90 / 3/9, Rama Krishna Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad, Telangana-500 013

¶10

Or R/o H.No.3-18-219, 3d fl +r Flat no.301, Sai Saketh itm, Pragathinagar, Near D- rrt, Ramanthapur, Hyderabq 3. Defendants a, g i,.il Ml.. *

¶11

(oA.No.727 /20231

¶12

Counsel for the^pa rties: For the Applicant Sri T. Sridhar Reddy For the Defendants

¶13

Exparte

¶14

ORDER

¶15

1' The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.93,69,359.73ps (Rupees Eighty Three Lakhs Sixty Nine thousand Three hundred Fifty eight and Paise Seventy Three only) i,e.,a sum of Rs.66,5g,995.59ps under term roan account together with interest @ 11.40% p.a(+ 20/o penal interest) with monthry rests from the date of apprication tiil the date of realization and a sum of Rs.17,10,363.14ps under wcrl account with interest @ 9.25olop.a (+2olo penal interest) with monthly rests from the date of oA tiil the date of rearization and in defaurt for sale of hypothecated properties as described in the schedule ,.A (i to viii)" to OA.

¶16

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No,1 is a proprietary concern represented by defendant no.2 avaired term roan of Rs.75.00 rakhs under CGTMSE scheme for purchase of vehicles. The defendants executed demand promissory note and l,tediurnffir nt for Rs.75.00 lakhs and agreement of hypffi^{i tion Subsequently the defendants avaired "r{1(#*** nr,V 1p6,.n pital term loan of fo,,#

¶17

(oA. No.12712023)

¶18

Rs.14.90 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 01.10.2020. The defendants executed demand promissory note and agreement of hypothecation of movables. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 17.12,2021 & 07.1.2022 and issued legal notice dated ZO.tZ.2O22. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶19

Defendants 1 and 2 called absent and set exparte on 22.0g.2023.

¶20

Shri A. Venkateswarlu, Branch Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.16.

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank,

¶22

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

¶23

Defendants called To substantiate the case d\ of the Applicant AW.1, Applicant Bank was examined and he as Ex.A1 to 4.16.

¶24

(oA.No.12712023)

¶25

In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made 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.

¶26

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

¶27

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.83,69,358.73ps (Rupees Eighty Three Lakhs Sixty Nine thousand Three hundred Fifty eight and Paise Seventy Three only) i.e.,a sum of Rs,66,58,995.59ps under term loan account together with interest @ 11,40olo p.a from the date of application till the date of realization and a sum of Rs.17,10,363.14ps under WCTL account with interest @ 9.25%p,a from the date of OA till the date of realization.

¶28

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the Hypothecated movable properties as described in the schedules^..A (i to viii),, to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶29

11, against the person and properties of defendant of defendant no.1 firm towards rea lization

¶30

The Applicant Ba the OA.

¶31

(oA.No.127 /2023)

¶32

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

¶33

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶34

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶35

(Dictated to the P.A.., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of Jan'2024)

¶36

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND)

¶37

PRESIDING OFFICER

Indian Bank v. M/S. S.V. Logistics

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. M/S. S.V. Logistics

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

State Bank of India, versus M/S. Disha Systems India Private Limited

Ms Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (Rarc) versus M/S. Aswarth Usha

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Paturi Muralikrishna

State Bank of India versus M S. Datta Filling Station

State Bank of India versus M/S.Pushpa Trading

Sri Vattipally Saidulu versus State Bank of India