Allowed

State Bank of India, v. M/S. Disha Systems India Private Limited

DRT17 Jan 2024OA/198/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of a debt. The court held the bank established its claim and ordered payment of the outstanding sum plus interest, with proceeds from property sales deducted.

What did the court decide?

Respondents jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 96,57,204/- with interest less Rs. 43,20,000/- recovered by auction; unit to proceed towards auction of Schedule A properties.

State Bank of India, versus M/S. Disha Systems India… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY' 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.198 of 2022

¶3

Between:

¶4

State Bank of India, SARB-2, Chikkadpaili, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Disha Systems India private Limited, represented by its Managing Director Sri V. Srinivas,

¶8

Flat no.303, III floor, Sujatha Apartments, H. no.6- 1- 138, Walkers Town, padmaraonagar,

¶9

Secunderabad - SOO OO3.

¶10

Sri Vemuganti Srinivas, s/o Late V.V. Seshagiri Rao, aged 51 years, R/o H.No.20_440, r.oad no.21, Subhodaya colony, West Venkatapuram, Alwal, Secunderabad - 5OO 025,

¶11

Sri VemugantiLaxmi
Narashimha Rao, S/o Late V.V.
Seshagirirao, aged 56 years,
iiiiit^llf'3:ffid so v"u.S, r.;:;f rN=u';1,:
r.oad no.21, Subhodaya ,olony4i:'.1"t' .?
west Venkatapuram, Alwal, '!! ', , .,. '$
Secunderabad - 5OO 025. E 17li,N1ell:
4. SmtVemuganti Uma Devi. 1.'3 ?
:1::..'.r,:.Trsanti major, R/o H.No.20-4a0. srinivis, l'r'l -r..i',,,,. '.l;I.. ,,J .,', ,;,, ,. -,.,.., : rg",,S.'iji,$,
i?::.l::3i::ybh-odav.1 coronv,' tqil;i",. 1 i :':il'
West Venkatapuram, Alwal,
Secunderabad - 5OO 025.
Defendants

¶12

¶13

(oA.No.198/2022)

¶14

Counsel for the^parties: For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶15

Sri K. Narayana Sri M.V. Venu

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs,96,57,2O4l- (Rupees Eighty Six Lakhs Fifty Seven thousand Two hundred and four only) with subsequent interest @ 14.75o/o p.a with monthly rests from the date of apprication tiil the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged properties as described in the schedules ..A to C,, to OA.

¶18

2, As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 a private Limited company, defendant no,2 is the managing director and defendants 3 & 4 are directors/ partners of the said company availed cash credit of Rs.15.00 lakhs and bank guarantee of Rs,5.00 lakhs on 15.12.2005. The loan was secured by property belonging to defendant no.2 created equitable mortgage over the properties by deposit of tire deeds. The roan amount was also secured by mortgage longing to defendants 2 and 3 more fully mentiong.#n ,,r; tin C to OA.After availing the credit facirities, ffr+ oelenaanid auairdixshanced credit facirities or Rs.25 oo ,"-r{j?ll,'rJ"ii*r;;+H ;;;;;- T. 28.10.2006. The as guarantors and

¶19

(OA.No.198/2022)

¶20

executed guarantee agreement dated 28,10.2006. subsequenfly the cash credit facirities were enhanced to Rs,25,00 lakhs, 40.00 lakhs, Rs.60.00 rakhs and BG facirity to Rs.20.00 rakhs, Rs.60.00 rakhs and Rs.60.00 rakhs respectivery. Thereafter the Appricant bank renewed cash credit limit of Rs.95.00 lakhs and bank guarantee of Rs.30.OO lakhs with aggregate of Rs,125 rakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 06.06.2019. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA and 2g.02.2020 and issued legal notice dated L0.03.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶21

3, Ld counsel for defendants ShriM.V.Venufiled vakalath but not filedWritten statement.

¶22

Shri Ch. Raghavender Rao, Manager of the Applicant Bank examin ed himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which a re marked as Ex.A.1 to A.53. The Applicant Bank recovered a sum of Rs.43,2O,Ooo/- (Rs.2O,1O,Ooo/_ + Rs.23,to,ooo/-) by sate of "B and C" properties bV yry ofrl6rt_i.qn under SARFAESI Act. '? i' ', /:, " //,'." 'r.\ 5. Heard the r_0. Couf/s+r for_the nppricant b6rifr. [l=],^{t7,:T ,*il} ', :il \ .l5il/ .;-.

¶23

(oA. No.198/zo2z)

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

prayed for?

¶27

7' Defendants counser fired vakarath but did not fire written statement. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.53. 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 entired to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶28

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: 9. The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.g6,57 ,2O4/_ (Rupees Eighty Six Lakhs Fifty Seven thousand Two hundred and four only) with subsequent interest @ 14.75o/o p.a from the clate of applicationtill realizationlESS a sum of Rs.43,20 pOO/- recovered by sale of Schedule B & C properties .

¶29

The Applicant bank is against the mortgaged immovable property ule "A" to OA towards realization of the d

¶30

t.i.,! *

¶31

(OA. No.198/2022)

¶32

11' the Appricant Bank is arso entiued to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶33

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

¶34

The Appricant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶35

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶36

Communicate a copy of the order to the pa rties concerned.

¶37

(Dictated to the p'A , transcribed,ty her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of )an,2024)

¶38

sdl(c. GoPtcHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

:2Wy o*f:;';,y;gin";1i6"^

State Bank of India, v. M/S. Disha Systems India Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India, v. M/S. Disha Systems India Private Limited

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

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Paturi Muralikrishna

Indian Bank versus M/S. Dsb Enterprises

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Laxmi Narashimha Binny Rice Mill

Ms Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (Rarc) versus M/S. Aswarth Usha

State Bank of India versus M S. Datta Filling Station

Indian Bank versus M/S. S.V. Logistics