Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Jay Ess Associate

DRT14 Nov 2024OA/13/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a money recovery application filed by State Bank of India against a firm and its proprietor. The court found the bank established its claim through witness examination and documents, ruling the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the principal sum with interest and permitting proceedings against mortgaged and hypothecate

What did the court decide?

The Defendants are directed to pay Rs. 1,02,36,724/- with interest @ 11.15% p.a. The bank can proceed against mortgaged/hypothecated properties and personal properties of defendant no.2 and defendant

State Bank of India versus M/S. Jay Ess Associate — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER'2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.13 ot 2024

¶3

Between:

¶4

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-II (SARB-II) first floor, opp Sandhya Theatre, RTC cross roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. )ay Ess Associate, Represented by its Proprietor Sri VasarlaVenkat, defendant no.2 herein, H.No.5-4-1304/3, Ptot no.258, Sharadanagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad - 500 070.

¶8

Mr. Vasarlavenkat,
s/o Sri Suryanarayana
aged about 46 years, occ: business
and proprietor of defendant no.1
firm, plot no.20, road no.2,
sharadanagar, Vanasthalipuram, --U
H;;"#;: ;6d;;;'"""'"' """ Frf- 5d,
&
ll i*"
14|l0t,
Plot no.98, sharadanagar,
Vanasthalipuram,
Hyderabad - 500 070.
Counsel for the Parties: the Parties: Parties: K6;;;{+S37

¶9

Counsel for the Parties: the Parties: Parties: For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶10

: Sri G.^{prabhakarSarma} : Sri D. Raghavulu

¶11

(oA.13 of 2024)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs,!,02,36,724l- (Rupees One Crore Two Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty four only) with interest @ 11.15olo p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of oA till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged and hypothecated properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶14

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a firm represented by its proprietor defendant no.2 availed cash credit of Rs.95 rakhs on to.or.2022 and executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation. Defendant no.2 guaranteed the due and executed guarantee agreement. The defendant no.2 created equitabre mortgage by deposit of originar Regd sare deed document no.3982/20t6 dt.13.05.2016 over immovable property more fully described in the schedule A to oA. All the stocks, current assets, book debts, receivabres etc were hypothecated in favour of commercial branch of applicant bank. After ava iling the loan facility, the defendants failed to of sanction, hence the applicant bank was co ned t S\account^{as NpA} and issued demand not''", ;o',0^{t fr6,r9frt} i pite of severa I \1.1. a: .o +l Ktr;s,qEiil

¶15

(oA.13 of 2024)

¶16

requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶17

Sri D. Raghavulu, counsel for defendants filed vakalath but failed to file Written statement.

¶18

sri leeban Mishra, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1to A.10.

¶19

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶20

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶21

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶22

7 ' counsel for defendants fired vakarath but faired to fire ws. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.10. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appli entitled to recover the

¶23

claim made in the OA with

¶24

B. 1 [ it0\J lpl :
In the result, the present \irrs allOwed with costpl under:
%,',*tn#

¶25

(oA.13 of 2024)

¶26

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,02,36,724/- (Rupees One Crore Two Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and

¶27

Twenty four only) with interest @ 11.15% p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶28

The Applicant bank is entiUed to proceed against the mortgaged and hypothecated properties as described in schbdule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶33

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶34

(Dictated to

¶35

to
corrected, sisned and pronounced bv me in the open
ffiffiSfn fr Y 'q<br>sd/-
)k n /t Nn\r 1111rJ m,t lfl?t -\ :- - il li (G . ' G Oo P ICHANTCHAN D)
i jj pREstDtNG oFFtcER
*" ir,t:,i IRUE coPy
,l+i;:,,' 1u s ilY
AssL f,rldolrar
ORI.I, HYDERAEN?.

State Bank of India v. M/S. Jay Ess Associate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Jay Ess Associate

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

Similar cases

Central Bank of India versus M/S. Cold Care Warehousing and Logistics

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Gemes Spine and Pain Care

Karnataka Bank Limited, versus Smt. Kondapalli Indira

State Bank of India versus M/S. Dw Doors and Windows

State Bank of India versus Sri Bandi Kiran Kumar

Mr D Surender Babu versus Repco Home Finance Ltd.