Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Aditya Upvc Manufacturerss

DRT15 Apr 2024OA/221/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed a recovery petition filed by State Bank of India. The court held that the bank established its claim against the partnership firm and its partners, awarded Rs.27,14,507 with interest, and granted authority to proceed against hypothecated assets and defendant properties.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs.27,14,507 with interest at 14.75% p.a. from defendants and provisional attachment of hypothecated and other movable/immovable properties.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Aditya Upvc Manufacturerss — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL'2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.221 OF 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Branch office at Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its authorized Officer

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Aditya UpVC Manufacturers, A partnership firm represented by Its partners, Vuppalaphanindra Kumar &pasurlaSuryaprakash Reddy, office: flat no.5-60, Phase-V, Extension Jeedimeila, IDA, Dhutapaili, euthbu[apur, Medchal, Malkajgiri district, Telangana - 500 055.

¶10

Mr.Vuppalaphanindra Kumar, s/o V. Ramesh, aged about 31 years, occ: business, male, r/o flat no.606, C Block, 6th floor, Splendours Apartments, Gajularamaram, Shapoornagar, medchal, Malkajgiridist - 500 054.

¶11

6q
'r** tr

¶12

Also at

¶13

2- t35 / 400, Ushodaya colony, UshaMullapudi Hospital backside, Gajularamaram, euthbullapur,

¶14

(OA.No.221 of 2023)

¶15

IDA leedimetla, Medchal, Malkajgiridist - 500 055.

¶16

PasurlaSuryaprakash Reddy, s/o Peddi Reddy, aged about 43 years, occ: business, male, R/o flat no.402, vinayaka Residency, prasoonanagar, Medchal, Matkajgiridist- 5OO 054.

¶17

Also at:

¶18

6-296/ A, venkateshwa ra na ga r, Near Satyagnan school, Chintal, Thirumalgiri, HMT Township, Medchal, Malkajgiridist_ 5OO O54.

¶19

Also at

¶20

H.No.49-416 /5/c/t, ptot no.142, Padmanagar, phase-Il, Chinthat, euthbuilapur, Medchat - Matkajgiridist_ 500 054.

¶21

Defendants

¶22

Counsel for the parties:

¶23

For the Applicant

¶24

For the Defendants

¶25

Smt Taranginipisipati

¶26

Shri T. Sridhar Reddy

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for

¶29

recovery of a total sum.g!- Rs.27,l4,SO7/_ (Rupees Twenty

¶30

Seven lakhs Fou hundred and Seven only)

¶31

d',\

¶32

!.€., a sum Rs.22,06 ,08,365/- with interest @

¶33

L4.75o/o p.a w mor{tffiyppfisffiom 07.2023 tiil the date of

¶34

(OA.No.221 of 2023)

¶35

realizationand in default for sale of hypothecated assets as described in the schedule to OA.

¶36

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a partnership firm represented by defendants no'2 & 3 as its partners and guarantors avaired term roan of Rs.25.00 lakhs, cash credit of Rs.20.00 rakhs and term roan of Rs.5.00 rakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 3r.03.202r. The defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation and hypothecated the schedule mentioned movabres as a security for the said roan facirities. After avairing the roan facirities, the defendants faired to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to crassify the account as NpA and issued recail notice dated 13.06.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶37

3' counsel for defendants fired vakarath but faired to fire written statement.

¶38

Sri K. GovindRaju, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant ich are marked as

¶39

Ex.A.1 to A.9.

¶40

¶41

Heard the Ld. Counsel

¶42

(OA.No.221 of 2023)

¶43

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?

¶44

Counsel for defendants filed vakalath but not filed Written statement. 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 established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶45

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶46

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.27,14,5O7 l- (Rupees Twenty Seven lakhs Fourteen thousand Five hundred and Seven only) i.€., a sum of Rs.22,06, 142/- + Rs.5,08,365/- with interest @ t4.75o/o p.a from 04.O7.2}23till the date of realization.

¶47

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movable property as d e to OA towards realization

¶48

of the debt due.

¶49

¶50

(OA.No.221 of 2023)

¶51

11' The Applicant Bank is also entitled 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.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶55

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶56

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of Aptil'2024)

¶57

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶58

..s
-.,
, -
., , 15APR2mt *
r.. .r -i:\ .'t ..f: - .. Q ., ,

¶59

(tr"Lwry+-esil{{rct,e, DRT.T, HYDERABAO.

State Bank of India v. M/S. Aditya Upvc Manufacturerss

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Aditya Upvc Manufacturerss

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

State Bank of India versus Smt. Varsha Jawar

State Bank of India versus Smt. Parasa Vijayavani

State Bank of India versus Smt. Jawar Santhosh

Canara Bank versus M/S. Abhinandadna Industries

Indian Bank versus M/S. J.C.Infra

State Bank of India versus Pps Hospitality Services