Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Ore Doors.

DRT14 Aug 2024OA/137/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed an application filed by a bank for recovery of a defaulted loan sum with future interest against a proprietary concern and its proprietor, enforcing hypothecation and property attachment along with a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed. Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay total sum with future interest; allowed recovery from hypothecated movables and properties; issued recovery certificate.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Ore Doors. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.t37 ot 2024

¶3

Between:

¶4

Stressed Assets Recovery Branch_I, Branch ofFice at 2nd floor, upstairs of ISRTC^{BuildingCommuters Centre,} Koti, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Ore Doors,

¶8

Represented by its proprietor Sri Pada laCn ira njeev, S/o Sri PadalaMogulaiah,

¶9

Aged 39 years, occ: business, Shed no.11/A, IDA patancheru,

¶10

Sangareddy, Hyderabad - 502 319.

¶11

Sri PadalaChiranjeev, s/o Sri PadalaMogulaiah, aged 39 years, occ: business, R/o 8-3-228/260/1,

¶12

Rahmathnagar, Banjara hills,
Khairtabad, Hyderabad -5
Also at ffi
e)
4-l-733, BTS colony,
Vikarabad, Rangaredr
District - 501 101.
Defendants
1 [ rlj8 ztlt .j:
.J,.
-O,?,
:'*+r,*orofli"+)i]
.lyrnV \Y.
For the Applicant
Ms. Sangeeta Jaiswal
For the Defendants
Exparte

¶13

(0A.L37 of 2024)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.51,74,224l_ (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs Seventy Four thousand Two hundred and Twenty Four only) (Rs.3,92,853/_ in toan A/c. No.3B36OO6751O and a sum of Rs'47,54,37u- in roan A/c.No. 3803233L467) with future interest @ 14.4Qo/o p.a with monthly rests from 0g.04.2024 (inclusive of 2% penar interest) tiil the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated movables as described in the schedule 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 as its proprietor availed term loan facility of Rs.42.00 rakhs and Rs'15'00 rakhs towards working capitar rimit vide retter of arrangement dated 23.10.2018. The defendants deposited agreement of loan cum hypothecation and guarantee agreement dated 23.10.201g. The term loan facility of Rs.42.00 lakhs is primarily secured by hypothecation of machinery purchased out of banks finance. The working it of Rs.15.00 lakhs is secured by hypothecation of fully described in the schedule to OA. ,^the defendants failed to comply the applicant bank was constrained to 23.01.2024 and

¶17

(OA.r37 ot 2024)

¶18

issued legal notice dated 22.03.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶19

Counsel for Defendants No.1 and 2 called absent and set exparte on 07.08.2024.

¶20

Sri Sandeep, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A. 1 to A. 17.

¶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

7' Defendants cared absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.17. 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 entiued .,,frlf@vryu34p1* made in the OA with future interest uno .ortyii.,fl tr t5i: :+ i,,i,^{1 4 Auc} Zy2I '-$'j ''\tih,.,"-t1.M o..:i,;Si"iEP

¶24

(OA.737 of 20241

¶25

8 In the result, the present oA is ailowed with costs, as under:

¶26

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.51,74,224/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs seventy Four thousand Two hundred and Twenty Four only) (Rs.3,92,g53/- in loan A/c. No.38360067510 and a sum of Rs.47,54,37U- in loan A/c.No. 3803233t467) with future interest @ 12.40o/o p.a from 09.04.2024 t* the date of realization till the date of realization;

¶27

9' The Appricant bank is entiued to proceed against the hypothecated movabres as described in schedure to oA towards rearization of the debt due.

¶28

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person

¶29

and properties of defendants No.2 and properties of defendant no.1

¶30

firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶31

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

¶32

The Applicant shall file a two weeks from the date

¶33

of receipt of order, ,'t

¶34

:',.^{14 /,uc} zwl

¶35

(OA.t37 ot 2OZal

¶36

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶37

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶38

(Dictated to the p A., transcribed bytrer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day ot Aug,2024)

¶39

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶40

IRuBcohY
Lt, 1277
Arst. Roglstrar -
DRr'-|, HYOFRA?;\D'

State Bank of India v. M/S. Ore Doors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Ore Doors.

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

State Bank of India versus Mr. R. Madhu

Mr Iytha Yugender versus State Bank of India

Mr Purella Rakesh versus State Bank of India

Sri Santhoshimatha Enterprises versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Sri Garlapati Nageshwar Rao

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Harihara Pack Private Ltd.