Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sanjeevani Industries

DRT2 Dec 2024OA/149/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's OA for recovery of dues and realization of debt from mortgaged properties and hypothecated movables against the firm and its proprietor who failed to repay cash credit, term loans, and WCTL loans.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 1,10,84,089/- with interest; Sale of mortgaged property and hypothecated movables; Costs of OA; Recovery certificate issued.

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

¶1

THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs rHE 2ND DAy oF DECEMBER,2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.149 ot 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, A-sset Recovery Management Branch, (SARB-II), first floor, opp Sandhya Theatre, RTC Cross Roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Sanjeevani Industries, Represented by its proprietor Sri Lingampally Lingam, the Defendant no.2 herein Sy.No.393, Khanapur village, Nizamabad district _ 503 OO3.

¶9

Sri Lingampally Lingam, S/o Sri LingampallyLachaiah, Aged about 43 years, male, O-cc: business & proprietor of 1sr defendant. H.No. 1-1 1-8/5, phulong, Nizamabad - 503 OO1

¶10

Defendants

¶11

Counsel for the parties:

¶12

For the Applicant
Sri G. PrabhakarSarma
Defendants
Sri Shashi Kanth Tiwari
0tc lpr

¶13

(oA. No.149/2023)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,lO,g4,Og9/_ (Rupees One Crore Ten Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand and Eighty Nine only) i.e,

¶16

a) A sum of Rs.31,87,982/- under cash credit loan with interest @ 14.40o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization;

¶17

b) A sum of Rs.71,55,569/- under Term loan with interest @ L2.4Oo/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization;

¶18

c) A sum of Rs.7,40,538/- under WCTL loan with interest @ 9.25% p.a with monthly rests From date of application till the date of rea lization ;

¶19

and in default for sale of mortgaged property and hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 represented by its proprietor the 2nddefendant availed working capitar roan facirities under cash credit of Rs'30 00 rakhs and term loan of Rs.70.00 rakhs vide retter of arrangement dated 12.05.2019. In the light of pandemic the defendants availed Eme e guarantee scheme (GECL) of Rs.11.14 lakhs vid dated 21.10.2020. The defendant no.2 gu t of loan facilities and

¶21

(oA. No.149/2023)

¶22

executed guarantee agreement dated 21.10.2020 and hypothecated all the movables as described in the schedule to OA. Defendant no.2 created equitable mortgage by deposit of original Regd sale deed document no.2lL7/20t5 dated 02.02.2015 more fully described in the schedule to OA.

¶23

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA. Inspite of demands made by Appricant the defendant no.1 has not regurarized the account, and the Appricant bank issued legal notice dated 26.03.2023 but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.l,lo,84,089/- (Rupees One Crore Ten Lakhs Eighty Four

¶24

Thousand and Eighty Nine only) with interest @ 14.40o/o p.a, @ l2.4Oo/o p.a and @ 9.25% p.a respectively with monthly rests from date of application till realization. Hence the OA.

¶25

2' The Defendant No.1 fired written statement and denied the averments made in OA. The defendants denied the creation of mortgage of any property as security to the Applicant bank. It is contended that the entire craim of Appricant bank is based on brank documents which were executed by appricant and arso contended that the documents reried upon by Appricant are inadmissibre in

¶26

evidence. It is further Applica nt has not shown the actual paymen 'df u^ru * rest levied upon the

¶27

(oA. No.149/2023 )

¶28

defendants. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA. Defendant no.2 examined himself as DW.1 but not filed any documents.

¶29

') I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶30

Heard the arguments.

¶31

Now, the points that arise for consideration are: i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶32

ii) To what relief ?

¶33

Point No.i):

¶34

Sri S. Rajendraprasad, Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.22 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly establish the liability of the defendants.

¶35

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though

¶36

defendant No.2 examined himself as DW.1, his evidence is in noway

¶37

helpful to him. The defendant No.2 having taken the plea that the

¶38

applicant bank did not follow the RBI guidelines and that the present

¶39

OA was barred by any substantial proof to

¶40

that effect. ents exhibited by the

¶41

Applicant Bank fl$fant^documenrsare

¶42

(oA.No.149/2023)

¶43

executed by the defendant No.1 in the normal course of transaction. The defendant No.2 very vaguery contended that particurars made in the OA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendant No.1 and 2 are liable to pay the oA claim. considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendant No.2 is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entitled to claim the oA amount from defendants. Therefore, the oA craim deserves to be allowed against the defendants No.1 and 2_

¶44

Point No.ii)

¶45

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

¶46

The Defendants No.1 and 2 arejoinry and severary riabre to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.l,lO,g4,Ogg/_ (Rupees One Crore Ten Lakhs Eighty Four Thousand and Eighty Nine only) i.e,

¶47

a) A sum of Rs.31,87,982/- under cash credit loan with interest @ L4.4oo/o p.afrom date of apprication ti[ the date of rearization;

¶48

b) A sum of Rs.71,55,569/_ under Term loan with interest @ L2.40o/o p.afrom date of apprication tiil the date of rearization;

¶49

c) A sum of Rs.7, loan with interest @ 9.25o/o p.afrom. date of realization; utc1w * t.dl(''5 s W+s.,,,--*

¶50

(OA.No.149/2023)

¶51

The Applicant Bank is entiUed to proceed against the mortgaged property and hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶52

The Applicant bank is also entiUed to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶56

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶57

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of Dec'2024)

¶58

sd/-

¶59

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶60

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sanjeevani Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sanjeevani Industries

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

Ms Maruthi Tubes Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Ms Prius Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of India

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus Sri Baba Karthik Kalapatapu

State Bank of India versus Mr. Md. Mohammad

State Bank of India versus Sri Ganta Chandra Mohan

State Bank of India versus Sri. Manda Srinivas