Allowed

State Bank of India v. Brite Industries

DRT21 Oct 2024OA/207/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues against Brite Industries and Bar PatiChiranjeevi, directing payment of the principal sum with interest.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to jointly and severally pay the applicant bank Rs.68,52,257/- with interest from 03.05.2024 and the bank is entitled to proceed against mortgaged and hypothecated propert

State Bank of India versus Brite Industries — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 21STDAY OF OCTOBER' 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.2O7 ot 2024

¶3

Between:

¶4

State Bank of India, Branch office at Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, znd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its authorized officer

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Brite Industries, Represented by its Proprietor Mr. Bar Patichiranjeevi,

¶8

Plot no. 1,2,3,4,5 Sy. No.323lA4, Reddygudem village, Maddirala Village, Suryapet, TS-508 280.

¶9

Also at

¶10

Flal no.47, Sundaraiahnagar, Suryapet, Telangana - 508 213.

¶11

Bar PatiChiranjeevi, s/o Bar Pativenkataiah, aged about 31 years, occ: business male, R/o Flat no.47, Sundaraiahn Suryapet, Telangana - 508 213.

¶12

Also at:

¶13

Plot no. 1,2,3,4,5 Sy.No.323/ A4, Reddygudem village, Maddirala Village, Suryapet, TS-508 280.

¶14

f ,S.
I,P
tl,
nda nts

¶15

(oA.No.207l202a)

¶16

Counsel for the Parties:

¶17

For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶18

Smt Tarangini Pisipati

¶19

Expa rte

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.68,52,257l- (Rupees Sixty Eight Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Seven only) (Rs.29,92,7131- + Rs.38,59,544/-) with interest @ 14.40olo p.a with monthly rests from 03.05.2024 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated goods and mortgaged property as described in the schedule "A & 8,, to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is proprietorship firm represented by its Proprietor/ defendant no.2 availed MSME loan of Rs.65.00 lakhs i.e., CC limit of Rs.25.00 lakhs and term loan of Rs.40.00 lakhs. The loan facilities are secured by hypothecation of stocks, book debts, current assets and machinery etc more specifically described as schedule A to OA and mortga hedule B property to OA. Defendant no.2 created B schedule property and deposited the original title 2 registered in the k hfte0qE'iSAfns loan facility, the ,Mffi

¶23

(OA.No.207l202a)

¶24

defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA on t3.09.2023 and issued recall notice dated 06.05.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶25

Defendants No.1 and 2 called absent and set exparte on 19.09.2024.

¶26

Sri P. Sandeep, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.9.

¶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 Defendants as prayed for?

¶29

Defendants remainedexparte. 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.9. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has establlshed their claim made in the OA agai nd hence the Applicant Bank OA with future interest

¶30

is entitled to recoveffi cl"@.0"' and costs. * 21 0lll^,tru

li^h',;re*W

W]rffiY

(OA.No.207l2024)

B. In the result, the^{present OA is allowed with costs, as under:} The Defendants are^jointly and^{severallyliable to pay to the} Applicant Bank a total sum of^{Rs.68,52,257l-(Rupees Sixty} Eight Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand^{Two Hundred and Fifty Seven} only) (Rs.29,92,7L31- +^{Rs.38,59,54al-)with interest@} !4.40o/o^p.a from 03.05.2024 till^{the date of realization;}

¶35

The Applicant bank^{is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated} movables and mortgaged^{property as describedin schedule "A & B"} to OA towards realization^{of the debt due.}

¶36

The Applicant Bank is^{also entitledto proceedagainstthe person} and^properties of defendant^{No'2 and properties of defendant no'1} firm towards realization^{of the debt due.}

¶37

The Applicant Bank is entitled^{to the costs of the OA.}

¶38

L2. The Applicant shall file a^{cost memo within two weeks from the date} of receipt of order.

¶39

Issue Recovery certificate^accordingly.

¶40

Communicate a copy of'the^{order to the parties concerned.}

¶41

, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open
of Oct, 2024)
w sdl_
&$
* IRUE COPY -, . .(G.GoPIcHAND)
)ni: I ",.,
210[T2[ /t W.i'kil,l* PRESTDTNG oFFrcER
,-$h,*"d,$-fj
fr::ifP;6t';,2'

State Bank of India v. Brite Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Brite Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S. Cuts and Curve

State Bank of India versus Suggala Sai Kumar

State Bank of India versus Vaishnavi Enterprises

M S S K Industries versus Union Bank of India

Ms Mourya Enterprises versus State Bank of India

M S Sai Kiran Granites versus State Bank of India