Allowed

State Bank of India v. Kush Industries

DRT12 Sept 2024OA/212/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India against Kush Industries and its proprietor for recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 39,04,335/- along with interest and costs, holding that the bank had substantiated its claim through evidence.

What did the court decide?

The Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 39,04,335/- plus interest; Bank entitled to recover from hypothecated movables and other properties; Recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus Kush Industries — Money Laundering | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER'2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.212 of 2023

¶3

Between:

¶4

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Bus Terminal complex,. (Commuter Amenity Centre), Koti, Hyderabad - 95. Telangana StateRepresented by its Chief manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Kush Industries, Represented by its proprietor Smtusmasurana, aged major, Female, shop no.6, ll9-t1o. 1 6/4, Survey no.48_A, P IIC, Kattedan, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy district.

¶8

SmtUsmaSurana, 73-4-734/1, Karwan. Aged major, female, Hyderabad - 5OO 006.

¶9

Defendants

¶10

Counsel for the parties:

¶11

For the Applicant

¶12

Sreedhar For the Defendan Sridhar Reddy

¶13

(oA. No.21212023)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.39,04,335/_ (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Four Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Five only) (Rs.27,80,4A2/- + Rs.11,23,953/-) with further interest @ tr.o9,/o p'a with monthry rests from date of firing of oA tiil the date of realization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated movabres as described in the schedule to OA.

¶16

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.2 is the proprietor of defendant no.1 firm avaired cash credit rimit of Rs.10.00 rakhs and term roan of Rs.2g.50 rakhs totaring a sum of Rs.38.50 rakhs vide retter of arrangement dated 02.11.2020. To secure due repayment of loan facilities, the defendants executed agreement of roan cum hypothecation dated 02.rL.2020. After avairing the roan facirities, the defendants faired to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NpA on 2g.10.2022 and issued and issued legal notice.dated 07.06.2023. Inspite of several .1 :,;;:- "': .. _.-.;!: requests and demand{,4heG19^aaq*,g. did not crear the outstanding. ''L Hence this oA. ,:i: $! ,r, ,:^rzipmr :il WffiP"

¶17

(OA. No.21212023)

¶18

sri r' sridhar Reddy fired vakarath for defendants No,1 & 2 but faired to file Written statement.

¶19

SmtGeetaLakshmi, BranchManager of the Applicant Bank examined herself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are

¶20

marked as Ex.A.1 to A.10.

¶21

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶22

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶23

entitled for the claim made in the OA agalnst the Defendants as prayed for?

¶24

7' Ld counser for defendants fired vakarath but faired to fire ws. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibrted rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.10. 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 Appricant Bank is entitred to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶25

B. In the result, the present--OA is allowed with costs, as under: rhe Derendar#.:l lly liable to pay to the 6 . _^,,/t! Applicant Banf, a total 9,04,335 / - (Rupees Thirty Hundred and Thirty Five "'""#h:i,iJs,-m',8 tS;tr'tP =------./-.,,

¶26

(oA. No.21212023)

¶27

only) (Rs.27,8O,4BZ|- + Rs.11,23,953/-) with further interest @ 11.09olo p.a from date of firing of oA tiil the date of rearization;

¶28

The Applicant bank is entitred to proceed against the hypothecated movables as described in schedule to oA towards realization of the debt due.

¶29

The Applicant Bank is also entiUed to proceed against the person

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

The Appricant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶33

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶34

14, Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶35

(Dictated to the p'A , kanscribed by h_er, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of Sept, 202+l

¶36

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESlDlNG OFFICER

State Bank of India v. Kush Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Kush Industries

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

M/s.Mallikarjuna Purified Water Plant versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Shreyans Enterprises

Ms Amrit Enterprises versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Jambula Ravi versus State Bank of India

Smt Sura Padma versus Union Bank of India

Smt Vangaveeti Ranga Kumari versus State Bank of India