Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sree Brundavan Family Restaurant and Benquet Hall

DRT25 Mar 2024OA/222/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed an original application under Section 19 of the RDDB Act, 1993. The Debt Recovery Tribunal held defendants jointly and severally liable to pay dues to the applicant bank along with future interest and costs, based on the ex-parte evidence presented.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to jointly and severally pay Rs. 1,06,30,080/- with interest; Recovery Certificate issued; Cost Memo directed.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sree Brundavan Family… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAI\4ESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.L.B. (Hons.), tvt.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 222 oF 2022

¶5

State Bank of Ind ia, Nacha ram SME Branch, Opp. NTR Horticulture Cine Studio Main Road, Nacharam, Hyderabad, Medchal-500076 Rep by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Sree Brundavan Family Restraurant and Benquet Hall, MIG H.101, 102, H.B. Colony, Phase-II lvloula Ali, Medchal-Malkajgiri District Hyderabad-500062

¶9

Rep by its Prop.

¶10

2.
Mt. Tejavath Pratap Singh
S/o. Sri. Man Singh

¶11

D. No.101, Rampally,
Keesara Mandal, Medchal-
lYalkajgiri District-50130 1. Defendants.

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Y. Venkataramana Defendants : Exparte.Exparte.

¶13

: Exparte.Exparte.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA u/s.19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,06.30,080/- jointly and severally from the defendants together with interest @10.80o/o^p,a. and also^penal interest at 2o/o on the amount due for the default period, from the date of application till the date of realisauon along with ,ot V*-y.>,,, L'-

¶16

r \

¶17

2 oa.No.222l2022

¶18

Summons sent to^{D1 & 2 through} paper publication. They were as called absent and^no

¶19

set ex-parte on^23.O9.2022 representation.

¶20

The Applicant^{Bank examinedD. G. Satya Prasad, Manager} AS AW-1 and marked 19 documents^{throughhim as Ex.A.1} to Ex. A. 19.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the applicant^{bank reported orders may be} passed on merits. Perused the material^{placed on record.}

¶22

The polnt that arises for consideration^is:-

¶23

Whether the Applicant Bank^is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants?

¶24

As stated supra, defendants remained ex-parte.^{The Evldence} Affidavit coupled with the recitals^{in the documents viz.,Exs. A1} to A.19 marked on behalf of the Applicant^{Bank clinchesthe} claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants.^{Hence, I} hold that the Defendants are^jointly and severally^liable to^pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest^and costs.

¶25

In the result, the present Original Application No.22212022 is allowed as under:^-

¶26

i) the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.1,06,30,080/- with future interest @11.45olop.a. simple from the date of application i.e.,03.O2.2022 till the date of realization; @s\

¶27

;

¶28

3 oA.NO.222/2022

¶29

ii) the applicant bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendants for realization of its dues; and

¶30

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶31

B. The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶32

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶33

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned, (Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of March, 2024).

¶34

'" /fipy",,"t L---t (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sree Brundavan Family Restaurant and Benquet Hall

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sree Brundavan Family Restaurant and Benquet Hall

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

Kailash Chandra Jena versus Uco Bank

Ms Influx Security Services Pvt. Ltd. And Others versus State Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Raminder Singh

Union Bank of India versus Sk Industries

State Bank of India versus Lekh Raj Sharma

Icici Bank Limited versus Manjunataha Milk Diary