Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S. Navjeevan Enterprises

DRT1 May 2024OA/224/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues amounting to approximately Rs. 55.84 lakhs from a proprietary concern and its proprietor, along with other defendants including guarantors and legal heirs, granting a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

The OA is allowed with costs. Defendants are directed to pay Rs.55,84,977/- with interest and the applicant is authorized to sell hypothecated/mortgaged assets.

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Navjeevan Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MAY' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.88 of 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, SARB, 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity, Bus terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1, M/s. Harika Automobiles, Represented by its Proprietor The 2nd defendant herein D.No. 10/585, Opp Sivarama Krishna theatre, MG road, Railway Kodur - 516 101 YSR Kadapa district.

¶10

Near Balijapalli Gangamma temple, M.G. road, Railway Kodur - 516 101 YSR Kadapa district.

¶11

¶12

D.No.7/308, New Krishna Nagar, Railway Kodur, YSR Kadapa dist516 101.

¶13

¶14

D.No. 10/585, Opp Sivarama Krishna theatre, MG road, Railway Kodur - 516 101

¶15

Sri A. Siva Rayudu, s/o Sri A. Subba Reddy, aged about 39 years,

¶16

//6
'rF il
i
'-)
.. c $i,7
;1'

¶17

(OA.No.88 of 20221

¶18

occ: business and proprietor of 1't defendant D.No.6/2998, Kavitha Lane, Padmavijaya Hospital street, Railway Kodur - 516 101 YSR Kadapa district

¶19

¶20

D.No.7 /308, New Krishna Nagar, Railway Kodur, YSR Kadapa dist- 516 101.

¶21

Sri A. Subba Reddy (Died) Per LRs, the defendants 2 & 4 to (Added as per orders dt 21.o8.2023) s/o Sri A. Subba Rayudu, aged about 62 years, occ: business, D.No. 6/2998, Kavitha Lane, Padmavijaya Hospital street, Railway Kodur - 516 101 YSR Kadapa district

¶22

¶23

D.No.7l30B, New Krishna Nagar, Railway Kodur, YSR Kadapa dist- 516 101.

¶24

Smt A. Shankaramma,

¶25

w/o Late Sri A. Subba Reddy, aged major, female, occ: business, Door No.6/299, Padmavijaya Hospital, MG road, Railway Kodur - 516 101. YSR Kadapa district.

¶26

Smt Padmavathi, D/o Late Sri A. Subba Reddy, Aged major, female, Door No.6/299, Padmavijaya Hospital, MG road, Railway

¶27

(oA.No.88 of 2022 )

¶28

Kodur - 516 101. YSR Kadapa district.

¶29

Smt Devi Priya, w/o late Sri A. Sai Pratap, s/o Late Sri A. Subba Reddy) aged major, female, Door No.6/299, Padmavijaya Hospital, MG road, Railway Kodur - 516 101. YSR Kadapa distrlct.

¶30

Master Kisan, s/o Late Sri A. Sai Pratap, minor, male, represented by his natural guardian and mother Smt Devi Priya Door No.6/299, Padmavijaya Hospital, MG road, Railway Kodur - 516 101. YSR Kadapa district.

¶31

B. Master Lakshya, s/o Late Sri A. Sai Pratap, minor, male, represented by his natural guardian and mother Smt Devi Priya, Door No.6/299, Padmavijaya Hospital, MG road, Railway Kodur - 516 101. YSR Kadapa district.

¶32

Defenda nts

¶33

Counsel for the Parties:

¶34

For the Applicant
For the Defendants , urf,p - -Od
E
ilt
ORDER

¶35

l. TI he Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants 1 and 2 for recovery of a total sum of Rs.55,84,977l- (Rup6-es Fifty Five Lakhs Eighty Four thousand Nine hundred and Seventy

¶36

(OA.No.88 of 2022)

¶37

Sevenonly) i.e., a sum of Rs.41.61,073l- under cash credit with interest @ 10.70o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and a sum of Rs.L4,23,904/- under term loan account with interest @ 10.80o/o p.a with monthly rests from date 0f filing of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property and hypothecated assets as described in the sched ules

¶38

"A & B" to OA.

¶39

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a^proprietary concern represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2 availed cash credit facility of Rs.30.O0 lakhs and term loan of Rs.15 lakhs (overall of Rs.45 lakhs) vide letter of arrangement dated 25.01.2017. To secure due repayment of over all loan facilities, the defendants 1 and 2 executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation. Defendant no.3 stood as guarantor and executed guarantee agreement dated 25.01.2018. Defendant no.3 created equitable mortgage of Rs.40.00 lakhs on 25.0L.2077 over schedule mentioned property. The defendants 1 and 2 hypothecated all the movables more fully described in the schedule B to OA. After availing the loan defendants failed to compty the terms or *.ai#Oi"ifi iijetrN cant bank was ,^ r_ ,j.t constrained to classify the dccount as t-pe and iss legal notice dated 30.01.2022. Inspite of several requests and- demands, the

¶40

¶41

(OA.No.88 of 2022)

¶42

defendants did not clear the outstanding. Defendant no.3 expired and the legal heirs of deceased were added as defendants No,4 to B. Hence this OA.

¶43

2 Defendant No.s 1 and 2 called absent and set exparte on 20.02.2023. Defendant no.3 died, Defendants 4 to B were set exparte on 28.03.2024.

¶44

Smt. K. Geetha Lakshmi, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined herself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.22

¶45

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶46

The point that arise for consideration is^{whetherthe ApplicantBank is} entitled for the claim made in the OA against the^Defendantsas prayed for?

¶47

Defendants called absent and set exparte,^To substantiate^{the case} of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the^{Applicant Bank was} examined and she exhibited relevant documents as^{Ex.A1 to A.22} In view of the above, I hold that the ApdFa$qank^{has established} hence the

¶48

their craim made in the oA .d6ffiihr$-.nd Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim^made in the^{OA with} futu re interest and costs.

¶49

'ii -. - :: :.

¶50

(OA.No.88 of 2022)

¶51

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

¶52

The Defendants No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.55,84,977/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Eighty Four thousand Nine hundred and Seventy Seven only) i.e., a sum of Rs.41,61,073l- under cash credit with interest @ 10.70olo p.a from date of application till the date of realization and a sum of Rs.14,23,904/- under term loan account with interest @ 10.80o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization.

¶53

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged property and Hypothecated movable property as described in schedules "A & B" to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶54

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to^proceed against the^person and properties of defendants No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due. However the Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against properties of defendants No.2, 4 to 8 only to the extent of estate devolved upon them being LRs of deceased defendant no.3.

¶55

The Applicant Bank is the OA.
6
S!oure{
Z:
---^

¶56

(oA.No.88 of 2022)

¶57

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

¶58

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶59

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶60

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of ltlay' 2024)

¶61

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFlCER

¶62

d.
l+,
*
,,10u ,t}zl
tri:ffi
Dar-t, nvoEnae n.
,rr$

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S. Navjeevan Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. M/S. Navjeevan Enterprises

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Smt. Anabham Tejaswi

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Kanakadurga Bore Wells

State Bank of India versus M/S. Tamogna Enterprises Private Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S Harika Automobiles

State Bank of India versus Sri Sonaganti Pavan Kumar

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Balaji Steel Industries