Allowed

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

DRT14 Nov 2024OA/159/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA No. 139 of 2024, the Tribunal allowed the recovery petition filed by State Bank of India against M/s. DW Doors and Windows and partners. The bank was directed to recover the outstanding loan amount with interest and proceed against hypothecated properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 50,76,974/- with future interest; bank entitled to realize debt from hypothecated movables and other properties.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Dw Doors and Windows — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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

¶3

OA.No.1S9 ot 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

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

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. DW Doors and Windows, A partnership firm, Represented by its partners The defendants 2 & 3 herein Plot no.17, Sy.No.74, Thattiannaram, Hayathnagar, Hyderabad - 500 068.

¶9

¶10

Plot no.12, road no.1, Adarsh Nagar colony, Nagole, Hyderabad - 500 068.

¶11

Mrs. P. Rani Reddy, W/o Sri P. Vikram Reddy, Aged about 38 years, O-cc: business & partner of 1" defendant firm, H.No.12-1-79lSE, Flat no.202, Sri Shaitaja Vinay Elite, Anandi enclave Near Bharath petrol pump, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad - 68.

¶12

(oA.41 of 2024)

¶13

Mr. P. Vikram Reddy, S/o Sri^p. Bat Reddy, Aged about 46 years, Occ: business & partner of Defendant no.1 firm, H.No.12-1-79lSE, Flat no.2O2, Sri Shaitaja Vinay Elite, Anandi enclave Near Bharath petrol pump, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad _ 68.

¶14

Defendants

¶15

Counsel for the parties:

¶16

For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶17

Sri G. Prabhakar Sarma Exparte

¶18

ORDER

¶19

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.50,76,g74l- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Seventy Six thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Four only) i.e.,

¶20

a) A sum of Rs.35,82,375/_ under cash credit loan with interest @ 12'40/o p'a with monthry rests from date or firing of oA ti, the

¶21

date of rea lisation;

¶22

b) A sum of Rs.6,53,249l- under term loan with interest @ L2.4o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realisation;

¶23

c) A sum or nr.:,02,04fl$5. nt with interest @ 9.25rro p.a with ,o/t'&l"rt, &,r 0","%\ ng of OA tiil the date 14il0VXl2l :' ofreatisation; ,: { .'.i 9, a "-o:--;il W;;.",#"

¶24

(OA.4L ot 2Oz4)

¶25

d) A sum of Rs.5,38,629l- under GECL (Ext) account with interest @ 9.250/o p'a with monthry rests from date of firing of oA tiil the date of realisation;

¶26

and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated movabres as described in the schedule to OA.

¶27

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a firm and defendants 2 and f as its partners avaired cash credit of Rs.31.00 rakhs, term roan of Rs.20 rakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 01.07.2019. The defendants 2 & 3 guaranteed the repayment of overa, roan facirities and executed guarantee agreement dated 01.07.2019. The defendants avaired CCECL loan of Rs.3 lakhs and GECL of Rs.10 lakhs. To secure due repayment of overail roan facirities, the defendants executed supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA and issued legal notice dated 26.03.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶28

Defendants called abse

¶29

Cllx'-EV

¶30

(oA.4L of 2024)

¶31

Sri D. Naga^prasad, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are

¶32

marked as Ex.A.1 to A.23_

¶33

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

prayed for?

¶37

7' Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, officiar oF the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.Al to A.23. 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 Appricant Bank is entiaed to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶38

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.50,76,g74l- (Rupees Fifty

¶39

Lakhs Seventy S ht Hundred and Seventy Four only) i.e., (!'-I|^-,u',,, a) A sum h!t:s,ez,3%/- ,nae,. *,\ cred it loa n with interest @ 12.40/o rtJom date of filing of6l till the date of rea lisation ; (

¶40

(oA.41 of 2024)

¶41

b) A sum of Rs.6,53,249l- under term loan with interest @ L2.4o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realisation;

¶42

c) A sum of Rs.3,02,621l- under GECL account with interest @ 9.25o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realisation;

¶43

d) A sum of Rs.5,38,629/- under GECL (Ext) account with interest @ 9.25o/o p,a from date of filing of OA till the date of realisation;

¶44

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶45

The Appricant Bank is arso entiued to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶46

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

¶47

t2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶48

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶49

t4. Commu py of the order to the parties concerned.
""tryY" oryt'gu,roror by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me In the open
k
* 3 1 i llot, mt --:, (G. GOPTCHAND)sdl-
^ii PRESIDING OFFICER
lrRuB c@;
'm.
xmF

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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. Jay Ess Associate

State Bank of India versus Sri Bandi Kiran Kumar

Mr D Surender Babu versus Repco Home Finance Ltd.