Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Jaya Lakshmi Industries

DRT6 Nov 2024OA/206/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an OA for recovery, the DTI allowed the bank's claim against proprietary concern and proprietor for principal, interest, and costs, ordering a recovery certificate and proceeds against hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 63,22,018/- plus interest @ 14.25% p.a., costs, recovery certificate, and right to proceed against movable properties and persons/properties of respondents.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Jaya Lakshmi… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER'2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.2O6 ot 2O24

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, SME branch, 3'd floor, Above West side, besides Minerva Coffee shop, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Appllcant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Jaya Lakshmi Industries, Represented by its Proprietor Sri Raj Kumar Gandey - 2nd Defendant herein Shed no.F2 to F5, SEIE, IDA, Kattedan, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 077.

¶10

Sri Raj Kumar Gandey, s/o Sri Gandey Prakash, aged about 49 years, male, occ: business and proprietor of 1't defendant, ground floor,

¶11

n l?'.,?f1"i3;'f"1:,' ffi<br>,,n
H.No.17-75/2, s.i llagar,cotorl'p 0 6 fOV mZt ;
AnnapoornaKalyanaMandapam,..,. .. ,
Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad - S6. i - nd a nts
-.,ra.s;l
*,,i'.,,'?;#,V'

¶12

1oA.20612024',)

¶13

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant Sri G. PrabhakarSarma For the Defendants Exparte

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.63,22,018/- (Rupees Sixty three Lakhs Twenty Two thousand and Eighteen only) with interest @ t4.25o/o^p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of movable hypothecated property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶16

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a Proprietary concern represented by defendant no.2 as its proprietor availedworking capital loan under cash credit of Rs.55.00 lakhs on L9.07.2022. The defendants hypothecated all the stocks, raw materials, finished and semi finished goods, current assets, book debts and other assets more fully described in the schedule to OA. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to the account as NPA and issued legal notice dateo Or.O-3@fi f several req u ests and demands, the defendants "Oid notSbar nding. Hence this OA. 0 5 il0ymf

¶17

loA.206/2024]|

¶18

Defendants No.1 and 2 called absent and set exparte on 23.09.2024.

¶19

Sri B. Ramakrishna Prasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.6.

¶20

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant^Bank.

¶21

The^point that arise for consideration^{is whether the ApplicantBank is} entitled for the claim^made in the^{OA against the Defendantsas} prayed for?

¶22

Defendants remained exparte.^{To substantiatethe case of the} Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of^{the Applicant Bank was examined} and he exhibited relevant^{documents as Ex.A1 to 4.6. In view of the} above, I hold that the^{Applicant Bank has established their claim} made in the OA against^{the Defendantsand hencethe Applicant Bank} is entitled to recover the^{claim madein the oA with future interest} and costs.

¶23

B. In the result, the^present O*Z$3mv$ffitth th costs, as un doer: rhe Defendants are loin\tf ;G t"vffitlNliable to pay to the rE! ;' (Rupees Sixtv Applicant Bank a total;sunb $ nt"fir,r2^A!8/- ,ru , . u(., r" lt three Lakhs Twenty Two thousand^{an(ldlghteenonly) with} . L,J&kd -c+"rg{

¶24

(oA.206120241

¶25

interest @ 14.25o/o p.a from date of filing of OA tilt the date of rea lization ;

¶26

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the movable

¶27

property as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the

¶28

debt due.

¶29

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person

¶30

and properties of defendant No,2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

Issue Recovery ceftificate accordingly.

¶34

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶35

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of Nov, 2024)

¶36

sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶37

,"*
06[0t,mf 'fiRt EpoP.
.t,9.!ffi
lsst' BcOlFr
nRr.r, HYhfrs8lD,

State Bank of India v. M/S. Jaya Lakshmi Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Jaya Lakshmi Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus Mr. B. Samuel

State Bank of India versus Mr. Eedara Venkatesh

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Mahaveer Soft Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Geetha Enterprises

State Bank of India versus M/s. Bairu Consultancy Services Private Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S. Jyothi Food Products