Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S.Windhu Hospitalities

DRT9 Feb 2024OA/228/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues totaling approximately 84.42 lakhs rupees from M/s Windhu Hospitalities and proprietor Sri JadhavDattatreya, holding the bank established its claim.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 84,42,960/- along with interest; recovery of debt from hypothecated property and asset holders; issuance of Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus M/S.Windhu Hospitalities — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE^gTH DAY OF FEBRUARY' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.228 of 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

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

¶7

Represented by its chief manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s, Windhu Hospitalities, Represented by its Proprietor, major, Male, Sri JadhavDattatreya, Unit no.202, Paradigm, SSS Square Building, Near Kothaguda Signal, Sy.no.35, Kothaguda, Hyderabad - 500 084.

¶11

Sri JadhavDattatreya, s/o Sri PhulchandJadhav, major, male, R/o H.No.13-3/1 Phulaji baba Dhayana Kendra, PathaUtnoor, Adilabad -504 311.

¶12

Also at:

¶13

R/o Flat no.601, Aishwarya Residency, Safari Nagar, Prashanthnagar, Kothaguda, Hyderabad^* Defendants ffiq Counsel for the Parties For the Applicant FtB 2[23ri pr atyanarayana (x{: os For the Defendants R,tn

¶14

(OA.No.228 of 2023)

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.84,42,96Ol- (Rupees Eighty Four Lakhs Forty Two thousand Nine hundred and Sixty only) i.e., a sum of Rs.66,17,721l- with interest @ 9.75o/o^p.a with monthly rests for term loan and a sum of Rs.5,88,227/- and Rs.12,37,0121- with interest @ 10.55o/o p.awith monthly rests for GECL loan limitsfrom date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶17

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.2 is the^proprietor of defendant no.,1 firm availed term loan of Rs.75.00 lakhs on 19.08.2019 and defendant no.2 also stood as guarantor for due repayment of outstanding liability. The defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation and guarantee agreement dated 19.08.2019. The aforesaid limitwas secured by hypothecation of movable property more fully described in the schedule to OA. Subsequently, the defendants availed additional loan of Rs.12.00 lakhs under GECL2,0 on 01.06.2020 and executed necessary loan '- After availing the loan ., ;-' facilities, the defendants fiiled^{'to 'c} terms of sa nctio n, "t;.',. -;' I ri. hence the applicant bank Was constrained to da5sify the account as jlo^t't --^ --i. " '

¶18

(OA.No.228 of 2023)

¶19

NPA and issued legal notice dated 04.07.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶20

Defendants called absent and set exparte on O4.L2.2023.

¶21

Shri A.G. Satyaprasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.18.

¶22

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶23

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?

¶24

Defendants called absent and set exparte. 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.18, 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 made in the OA with

¶25

future interest and costs.^.

¶26

(OA.No.228 of 2023)

¶27

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

¶28

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.84,42,96O/_ (Rupees Eaghty Four Lakhs Forty Two thousand Nine hundred and Sixty only) i.e., a sum of Rs.66,77,721l- with interest @ 9.75o/o p.a for term roan and a sum of Rs.5,88,227/- and Rs.12,37,0t2/_ with interest @ 10.55% p.afor GECL loan limitsfrom date of applicationtill realization.

¶29

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated

¶30

property as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of

¶31

the debt due.

¶32

the Applicant Bank is also entifled to proceed against the person and

¶33

properties of defendant No.2 and properties of defendant no.1 firm

¶34

towards realization of the debt due.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶38

communicate a copy of th-e order to the parties concerned.

¶39

,4-=3=*..

¶40

(?ictated td the p:A ','ir'&scribeo cdurt on this the 9th ,CbS.ku ^by-her, z6za.1'^{corrected, ----'"-,signed J'e"tqand pronounced by o,me in theopen} ;., 'r rh,tr* '" .\i sd/;l '.,; *ii ' ''i !7 'j lf fS{I..lE ntr|ral,. { G - Gopt.rrarunr trFryF,Foe,l, -^(.GoptcHAND) .' PRESIDING L /,11.^{11. t x. l.-liffpREstDtNc 0.-')fii}^oFFtcER , ' ' ^--- -'6'co''' ,#:,"1fl.o'Y'#i"

State Bank of India v. M/S.Windhu Hospitalities

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S.Windhu Hospitalities

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

Bank of India versus M/S. Bhadrakali Industries

Bank of India versus Sri. Reddimala Vijaya Kumar

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Peddi Pavani

Canara Bank versus M/S. Blue Max Impex (India) Private Limited

Bank of Maharashtra versus Dr. Bodati Lakshmi Narayana

Ms Nap Leathers Private Limited versus Ms Assets Reconstruction Company