Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri Raja Rajeshwari Agencies

DRT5 Sept 2024OA/201/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an Original Application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India's claim for recovery of dues with interest and authorized proceedings against mortgaged property and defendant assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 1,27,12,617 with interest; authority to proceed against mortgaged property and defendant assets; issuance of recovery certificate.

State Bank of India versus Sri Raja Rajeshwari Agencies — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE sTHDAY OF SEPTEMBER'2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.2O1 ot 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Bus Terminal complex, (Commuter Amenity Centre) Koti, Hyderabad, Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Sri Raja Rajeswara Agencies, Represented by its proprietor Sri Bandi Sandeep, major, Male, H.No.15-205/t, Sarojini Devi road, Narsampet, Warangal dist - 506 132.

¶9

Sri Bandi Sandeep, s/o Sri Bandi Ramesh, major, male, R/6 H.No.15-205/1, Sarojini Devi road, Narsampet, Warangal dist - 506 132.

¶10

74\a{
,4F,
'.*
0 5 StP ltpt
.11. -_i .... Defe
(i;,>,"efi9
itdrftlc
Sri P.V. Satyanarayana
Exparte

¶11

SmtBandiBharathi, w/o Sri Bandi Ramesh, major female, R/o H.No.15-ZO5/1, ii^'.* Sarojini Devi road, Narsampefl Warangal dist - 506 132.

¶12

Counsel for the^parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

(OA.No.201 of 2024)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.L,27,L2,617/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Seven Lakhs Twelve thousand Six hundred and Seventeen only) (Rs.65,S6,162/- + Rs.G1,56,455/-) with interest @ 19.25olo p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶18

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.2 is the proprietor of defendant no.1 firm and defendant no.3 stood as guarantor to the loan facilities. Defendants availed cash credit facility of Rs.40.000 lakhs on 27.04.20t5 and executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 27.04.20t5, guarantee agreement. To secure the loan limits, the defendant no.3 deposited the title deeds relating to the OA schedule property bearing Regd.gift settlement deed No.55712006 dated 29.05.2006 with an intention to create equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds dated 2t.04.20t5. Su uently the tefendants 1to 3 availed term loan of Rs.32: .2015 and renewed the enhanced CC loan a khs loan of Rs.29.24 * lakhs on 27.0s.20t6. . tqp+$fignfiltn".r cred it loan was I'n .'." .) renewed and enhanced .upto Rs.1,20,9$r_-W; on 08.04.2021. After qa;m,39

¶19

(OA.No.201 of 2024)

¶20

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 03.05.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶21

Defendants No.1to 3 called absent and set exparte on 15.07.2024.

¶22

Sri D.G. Satyaprasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.27.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

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?

¶25

Defendants 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.27. In view of the above, I lica nt Bank has established their claim made in. OA nst ndants and hence the .:iv

¶26

Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the made in the OA with 'tr 0ssEP20il ?

¶27

future interest and coists. ..^j' ti?i,'ln- -*d$^fls Q;;r.'#

¶28

(OA.No.201 of 2024)

¶29

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.!,27,12,617l_ (Rupees One crore Twenty seven Lakhs Twerve thousand six hundred and Seventeen only) (Rs,65,56,1621_ + Rs.61,56,455/_) with interest @ L9.25o/o p.a from date oF application till the date of realization;

¶30

The Applicant bank is entiUed to proceed against the mortgaged property as described in schedule to oA towards realization of the debt due.

¶31

The Applicant Bank is arso entitred 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.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

of receipt of order.

¶35

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶36

y of the order to the parties concerned.

¶37

I by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open 2024)

¶38

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Sri Raja Rajeshwari Agencies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri Raja Rajeshwari Agencies

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 Sri. Jadav Gangadhar Rao

Bank of India versus M/S. Venkateswara Borewells

Punjab National Bank versus Sri. K. Ramakrishnareddy

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Laxmi Narasimha Poultry

Bank of Maharashtra versus Medfin Pharma Services Pvt. Ptd

State Bank of India versus Saanvi Ssi