Allowed

State Bank of India v. Vaishnavi Enterprises

DRT18 Oct 2024OA/143/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of loan dues of Rs. 22,22,095 along with interest and costs against the proprietor of Vaishnavi Enterprises and the firm, marking them jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 22,22,095 with interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated and other properties; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Vaishnavi Enterprises — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER'2c.24

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶4

OA.No.143 ol 2O24

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Bus Terminal complex (Commuter Amenity Centre), Koti, Hyderabad, Telangana. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Vaishnavi Enterprises, Represented by its^proprietor SmtAkula Padma, Female, Major, Plot no.9, Sy. No.281, Cherlapally to Rampally road, Rampally, Keesara Mandal,

¶10

Ranga Reddy district - S00 051.

¶11

SmtAkula Padma, w/o Sri Akula Srinivas,

¶12

female, major, Proprietor of Vaishnavi Enterprises,^plot no.9, Sy.No.281, Cherlapally to Rampally

¶13

Road, Rampally, Keesaramandal,

¶14

Ranga Reddy district - 50 Defendants
r6r s
Counsel for the Parti
IP &$
For the Applicant *
Satya narayana
10 OCI )fw sri!:
For the Defendants :

¶15

(oA. No.143/2024)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.22,22,O95l- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand and Ninety Five only) (Rs.4,14,53O/- + Rs.18,07,565/-) with interest @ 11.9olo p.a with monthly rests from date of apprication tiI the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶18

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.2 is the^proprietor of defendant no.1 who availed cash credit loan of Rs.4.00 rakhs and term roan rimit of Rs.20.20 lakhs on 02.06.2022 vide letter of arrangement dated 02.06.2022, To secure due repayment of outstanding riabirity, the defendants executed the Agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 02.06.2022. The outstanding riabirity of the aforesaid roan accounts have been secured by hypothecation of movabres as described in the schedule to oA. After avairing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the appricant bank was constrained to classify the accou PA and issued legal notice uoL=u dated vo'v+'zuzq'06.04.2024. ,rro6@G, rnseYG?&,tWI'ttqSR and deman ds'ds, the defendants did not ctear ,r'. ttidDutstun&lg. !- Hun%\li, * On. il:^{1 s ocT} ml^,a rl -'. .', 'i :'1. .c -O -'-.' t .:/.f.!.r./,,"fl""j1i',"]J- 'j"

¶19

(OA. No.143/2024)

¶20

Defendants No.1 & 2 called absent and set exparte on 12.09.2024.

¶21

Sri P. Prabhakar, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.7.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶23

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?

¶24

Defendants remainedexparte. 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.7. 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.

¶25

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.22,22,O95l- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Twenty Ninety Five only)

¶26

ke-.r*

¶27

(OA.No.143/2024)

¶28

(Rs.4,14,530/- + Rs,18,O7,565/-) with interest @ 11.9olo p.a from date of applicationtill the date of realization;

¶29

The Applicant bank is entiUed to proceed against the hypothecatedproperty as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶30

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person

¶31

and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶32

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

¶33

L2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶34

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶36

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

to. uor,.riilj

PRESIDING OFFICER

l+.

T',YE,COPY
// /,
/, ( - (,(_-e - (-___-,
' ,]f';lr'';ffi o- l! /t" /^-t-

¶41

State Bank of India v. Vaishnavi Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Vaishnavi Enterprises

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

State Bank of India versus Karvy Data Management Services Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Krishna Madhura Cotton Traders

Ms Masani Reddy Poultry Farms versus Canara Bank

State Bank of India versus Suggala Sai Kumar

State Bank of India versus M/S. Cuts and Curve

State Bank of India versus Brite Industries