Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Vajra Parboiled Rice Mills Private Limited

DRT4 Dec 2024OA/208/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DT-I, Hyderabad adjudicated an Original Application for recovery of a loan of Rs. 2.61 crores by State Bank of India against a company and its guarantors. Finding the claim established due to non-filing of a written statement by defendants, the order allowed the application and directed payment with future interest.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 2.61 crores plus interest; equity mortgaged properties attached; recovery certificate issued; banks entitled to proceed against other properties.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.2O8 of 2O23

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, (SARB), 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus terminal Complex, Koti, Hyderabad.

¶7

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Vajra Parboiled Rice Mills Private Limited, Represented by its Directors, The defendants 2 and 3 herein

¶11

Plot no.293, road no.78,

¶12

Near JRC Conventions hall,

¶13

lubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033.

¶14

And

¶15

Factory at Sy.no.340, D.No.4-227 / l, Amruthanagari^(post) Yadgarpally village, Miryalaguda lv'landal, Nalgonda district - 508 207.

¶16

Mrs. VajrapuAparna, w/o Sri VajrapuSatyanarayana, aged about 56^years, female, occ: business and director of

¶17

f;--B
; $roEcml ;
R&r,S#

¶18

1tt defendant companyf D.No.2-2-20 / K/ 9, flat no.40 1, Golden elite 2, Near OU entrance, DD colony, Hyderabad - 500 007.^{;$roEcml ;}

¶19

(OA. No.208/2023)

¶20

Mr. VajrapuAnuram, s/o Sri VajrapuSatyanarayana, aged about 29 years, male, occ: business and director of 1tt defendant company. H.no.2-2- t6/ B, C/ A- 10 I A, Flat no.102, Arman Towers, DD colony, A lane, near OU Entrance gate, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

¶21

Sri VajrapuSatyanarayana, s/o Sri V. ChinnaNarsaiah, aged about 63 years, male, occ: business, H.no.2-2- t6/8, Cl A- r0 / A, Flat no.102, Arman Towers, DD colony, A lane, near OU Entrance gate, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad - 500 007.

¶22

Defenda nts

¶23

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶24

Sri G. PrabhakarSarma

¶25

Sri V. Satyanarayana

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,61,68,163/- (Rupees Two Crores Sixty One Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Sixty

¶28

Threeonly) with interest @ 11.45olo p.awith monthly rests from date

¶29

of application till the d lization and in default for sale of

¶30

mortgaged properti{i* schedule "A to D" to OA. ,|,.|

¶31

(OA. No.208/2023)

¶32

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.l is the Company represented by its directors defendants 2 & 3. Defendants 2 and 4 are wife and husband and defendants 2 to 4 stood as guarantors to the loan availed by defendant no.1 company. Defendant no.1 company availed Rs.250 lakhs on 22.12.2020 and executed demand promissory note cum DPN note delivery letter. Defendants 2 to 4 executed guarantee agreement on 22.12.2020. Defendants 2 and 4 created equitable mortgage of schedule mentioned properties i.e., Schedule A to D to OA infavour of Applicant bank as security for due repayment of loan amount. After 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 02.05.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶33

Ld counsel for defendants Sri V. Satyanarayana filed vakalath for defendants but failed to file Written statement.

¶34

Sri P. Prabhakar, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined herself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to 4.15.

¶35

6 'P'l
#a
5. Heard the Ld. Cou ffor the # ffiplicant
*
0 /r tE[m
...,',t""":'-'','' 'W
...--l;'B1ii;.,

¶36

(OA. No.208/2023)

¶37

is whether the^{APPIicantBank is}

¶38

1. The point that arise^{for consideration} entitled for the^{claim made in the} OA against the^Defendantsas prayed for?

¶39

Counsel for defendants^{filed vakalath but failed to WS'To} substantiate^{the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1,official of the} ApplicantBankwasexaminedandheexhibitedrelevantdocuments as Ex.A1 to A.15.^{In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant} Bank has established^{their claim made in the OA against the} DefendantsandhencetheApplicantBankisentitledtorecoverthe claim made^{in the OA with futureinterestand costs'}

¶40

B. In the^{result,the present OA is allowed with costs'as under:} The Defendants^{are jointlyand severallyliable to pay to the Applicant} Bank a total^{sum of Rs.2,61,68,L631- (Rupees Two Crores Sixty} One Lakhs Sixty^{Eight ThousandOne Hundredand Sixty Three} only) with^{interest@ 11.45olop'a from date of application till the} date of realization^{LESS a sum of Rs'4O'OOlakhs paidby} defendants^{subsequentto filing of OA'}

¶41

entitled to Proceed^{againstthe mortgaged} to D" to OA^towards

¶42

rea lization^{of the}

¶43

(oA.No.208/2023)

¶44

The Applicant^{Bankis also entitled to proceed againstthe person} andpropertiesofdefendantsNo'2to4andpropertiesofdefendant no.1 firm towards^{realization of the debt due'}

¶45

11, The Applicant^{Bank is entitledto the costs of the OA'}

¶46

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

¶47

Issue Recovery^{certificate accordingly'}

¶48

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

¶49

tDlctated to the^{P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in theopen} iourt on this^{the 4th day of Dec,2024)}

¶50

sdl(G. GOPICHAND) PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶51

d.
i*'
0 r l]itl lut

State Bank of India v. M/S. Vajra Parboiled Rice Mills Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Vajra Parboiled Rice Mills 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

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sanjeevani Industries

State Bank of India versus Mr. Md. Mohammad

Ms Maruthi Tubes Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Sri Ganta Chandra Mohan

State Bank of India versus Sri. Manda Srinivas

Canara Bank versus M/S. Nandita Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.