Allowed

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

DRT8 Jan 2024OA/188/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Debt Recovery Tribunal proceedings, the applicant bank sought recovery of over Rs.34.05 lakhs representing loans classified as NPA. The Tribunal, after proceeding ex parte in the absence of the respondent proprietor, held the applicant bank had established its claim and ordered liability for the principal, interest, and costs.

What did the court decide?

Order is allowed; Defendant to pay total sum of Rs.34,05,714 with interest; Applicant Bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated property and defendant's person/properties for realization.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY'20.24

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.188 ol2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Asset Recovery Management Branch, SARB-II, 1-8-563/1, l't floor, Opp Sandhya Theatre, RTC cross roads, Chikkadpa lly, Hyderabad Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Sindhu Industries, Represented by its Proprietor, BandiSrinivasa Rao, Plot no.16,17,18, Near RTC Bus Body building, Madinaguda, Miyapur, Hyderabad - 500 050.

¶9

Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Parties:

¶11

For the Applicant

¶12

For the Defendant

¶13

Smt B. RamanaKumari
1/r*='t5. ".<br>" "[" ..l 'A<br>: pgr,,rr fi7t :
$ftr,,***,,-:l

¶14

(oA. No.188/2023)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendant for recovery of a total sum of Rs.34,OS,714l- (Rupees Thirty Four lakhs Five thousand Seven hundred and fourteenonty) i.e.,

¶17

a) a sum of Rs.24,91,169/- in respect of cash credit loan with current and future interest @ 17.25o/o p.awith monthly rests from17.05.2023 till the date of realization;

¶18

b) A sum of Rs.6,66,006/-in respect of FITL account with current and future interest @ I3o/o p.a with monthly rests from 17.05.2023 till the date of realization;

¶19

c) A sum of Rs.2,48,539/- in respect of WCTL account with current and future interest @ 13olo p.a with monthly rests from 77.05.2023 tiil the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that the defendant is a proprietary concern avaired cash credit rimit of Rs.24.00 lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 10.03.2012. The said facility is secured by hypothecation of movables as mentioned in cash credit facitity was

¶21

the schedule to OA. ,#Em\Jhe renewed with FnL &;ii'#,h:fYb.N, and wcrL racirity or Rs.2.00 takhs vide rltt8r or arrafrgemenr oa\bo so.oo.zozr After i" n I 'lrii02[

¶22

availing the toan r{gitities,'ilie defend'ant 6#O to compty the terms ({l>,,-of't9 Q;;r-SD

¶23

(OA.No.188/2023)

¶24

of sanction, hencethe applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA and issued legal notice dated 06.05.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶25

Defendant called absent and set exparte on 28.tL.2023.

¶26

Shri S. RajendraPrasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.12.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶28

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the oA against the Defendant as prayed for?

¶29

Defendant called absent and set exparte. 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.12. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the oA against the Defendant and hence the

¶30

Applicant Bank is entiUed to ade in the OA with future interest and costs^{/)' i'"'} J{.pI;r! ;. j,P a:)

¶31

W,,,,'#

¶32

(OA.No.188/2023)

¶33

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶34

The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.34,O5,714/- (Rupees Thirty Four lakhs Five thousand Seven hundred and fourteen only) i.e,,

¶35

a) a sum of Rs.24,91,L691- in respect of cash credit loan with current and future interest @ L7.2So/o p.afrom 17.05.2023 till the date of realization;

¶36

b) A sum of Rs.6,66,006/-in respect of FITL account with current and future interest @ 13olo p.a from t7.05.2023 till the date of realization;

¶37

c) A sum of Rs.2,48,539/- in respect of WCTL account with current and future interest @ 13% p.a from 17.05.2023 till the date of realization;

¶38

The Applicant Bank is entifled to proceed against the hypothecated property as described in the schedule to oA towards realization of the debt due.

¶39

the Applicant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶40

The Applicant Bank i of the OA.

¶41

,";1

¶42

1. The Applicant rn6rr'?ir" * in two weeks from the date of receipt

¶43

(OA.No.188/2023)

¶44

L4. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶45

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶46

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on thls the 8th day of Jan,2024)

sdl_

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFTCER

: oorrNTsl{ I
ke''

;RUE coPY
,i:,!;l;Effr;6/,,/ ?_

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Mr. M. Vivek

Union Bank of India versus M/S Vishwarajaa Industries

State Bank of India versus Smt. Gadmoor Rani

State Bank of India versus M/S. S.R.R. Solutions

State Bank of India versus M/S. Madhu Infra

State Bank of India versus Sri Varakantham Nanda Kumar Reddy