Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Spring Bee Diary Products Pvt. Ltd.

DRT27 Nov 2024OA/201/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs.19.45 crores from Spring Bee Dairy and tenor guarantors. The court held the bank established its claim via witness examination and allowed recovery from realized properties and personal assets along with costs.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.19.45 crores with interest, costs, and authorisation to proceed against hypothecated, mortgaged, and personal properties.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Spring Bee Diary Products Pvt… — Specific Performance | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I^{AT HYDERABAD} DATED THIS THE 27TH^{DAY OF NOVEMBER' 2024}

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND,^{PRESIDING OFFICER} OA.No.2O1 of 2023

¶3

Between:

¶4

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Management Branch - II, D.No. 3-4- 1013/A, 1't floor, Commuter Amenity Centre (CAC), TSRTC Bus station, Kachiguda, Hyderabad - 500 027. Rep by its Asst. Gen Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Spring Bee Dairy Products Pvt Ltd, Plot no.1, Bth floor, MCH No.1-10-75/t/7 to 6,

¶8

Saptagiri Towers, Pantaloons bldg.,

¶9

Begumpet, Secunderabad - 500 016.

¶10

The Managing Director, M/s. Spring Bee Dairy Products Pvt Ltd, Plot no.1,8th floor, MCH No.1-10-75/llt to 6,

¶11

Saptagiri Towers, Pantaloons bldg., Begumpet, Secunderabad - 500 016.

¶12

Ravindra Kumar Ya lava rth i, s/o Late Y. Mohan Rao, aged major, Managing director, R/o 50707,

¶13

7th floor, Indu fortune fields, Gardenia, Kukatpally,

¶14

Hyderabad - 5OO 072.

¶15

2^{7 N0\J ?ul}

¶16

TosyHemalatha loy NehuYalavarthi, w/o Sri Y. Ravindra Kumar, director, Rlo 50707,

¶17

(oA.201,120231

¶18

7th floor, Indu fortune fields, Gardenia, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500 072.

¶19

Yalavarthi Ramesh Babu, s/o Late Y. Babu Rao, male, major, director R/o n.No.53-4-38/L, Kristurajupuram, Opp IIC colony, Vijayawada - 520 008.

¶20

KadiyamJaswanth, S/o Sri Vinod kumar, aged major, Flat no.11, Surya plaza, Pragath in agar, ku katpal ly, Hyderabad - 500 072.

¶21

Yalavarthiprasanna Raju, s/o Late^y. Mohan Rao, aged major, 102,^{Sanjanatowers,Vidyanagar,} Tirupathi - 5t7 502.

¶22

B. RamparapaAleesamma, w/o Late^y. Mohan Rao, female, m.ajor, # 50707, 7th floor,Indu fortune fields, Gardenia, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500 072.

¶23

KadiyamVaraprasuna, Flat no.11, surya plaza, Pragathinagar, kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500 072.

¶24

Defendants

¶25

Counsel for the parties:

¶26

For the Applicant

¶27

Sri A. F#itifubrr,,.i-r^l--r" ,{.F:\S"E^{-ii6r.u ti} s:,i#rifrxrffii#=ffii^{"U</sup> *f oRpER', ?t N0\I?02[ -.t,i '1 $ -. .:.. .{.ar_.^{r_ '-i} the present OA a@aqgf, D'6fendants for t---' ,}

¶28

For the Defendants

¶29

The Applicant Bank fited

¶30

recovery of a total sum of , Rs.19,45 ,SLtgSS / -(Rupeis Nineteen

¶31

loA.2ou2023)

¶32

Crores Forty five Lakhs Fifty One thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Five only) with further interest @ 11olo p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of oA till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated and mortgaged properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶33

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a Company and defendants No.2 to 9 are guarantors avaired credit facirity of Rs.20.00 crores on 13.11.2018. Defendants No' 3 to 5 stood as personar guarantors vide retter of arrangement on 30.11.2018. on 18.02.2021 executed retter of arrangement and created equitabre mortgage of schedure mentioned properties. The roan accounts have been restructured by appricant bank vide letter dated 07.03.2021. The defendant company availed revised existing term loan of Rs.20.00 crores, GECL of Rs.1.72 crores ,^FITL oF Rs.1.2B crores and addr GECK of Rs.1.50 crores with totar of Rs'24.50 crores. Defendant no.3 is the owner and possessor of lands in Sy.no.96 more fuily described in schedure to oA and executed a regd memorandum of deposit of title deed on deposit of sare and rectification deeds. After avairing the roan facirities, the defendants failed to comply.;:fhs.,t6.ms ;oi sanction, hence the ..i'^'d-! .:. '\ applicanr bank was constpina? ro &bsiry tni u.jiornt as NpA and , . issued tegat notice dated.29.o4.?W1l0I , lilLpite.rif severat requests

¶34

loA.2OL/2023)

¶35

and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence

¶36

this OA.

¶37

Counsel for defendants filed vakalath but failed to file Written statement.

¶38

Sri D. Srinivas, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.57.

¶39

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶40

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?

¶41

Counsel for defendants filed vakalath but failed to file WS. 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.57. 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 Appl ik'is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with and costs.

¶42

B. In the resutr, the present OA is atoflqft\vgffil costs, s u n der:

¶43

(oA.201,/2023)

¶44

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a totar sum of Rs.19,45,51,955/-(Rupees Nineteen crores Forty five Lakhs Fifty one thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Five only) with further interest @ rro/o p.d from date of filing of oAtill the date of realization;

¶45

9' The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated andmortgaged propertiesas described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶46

10, The Applicant Bank is arso entiiled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No,2 to 9 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶50

commqnilgtu a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶51

sdl_

¶52

(G. GOPTCHAND)

State Bank of India v. M/S. Spring Bee Diary Products Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Spring Bee Diary Products Pvt. Ltd.

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

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Ketha Purna Venkata Prasad

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Maryada Vinutha Devi

M/S. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation versus M/S. Vaishnavi Sales Corporation

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. the Pegadapally Primary Agriculture Co-Operative Society Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Shruthi Machine Cutting Works

Bank of India versus M/s. Natural Fruit Juice Processor