Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Vaishnavi Global Avenues and Infra Solutions (P) Limited

DRT26 Jun 2024OA/236/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order is an original application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 6.53 crores against a corporate defendant and its directors for failure to repay cash credit and GECL loans. The Tribunal examined the documents and defenses, held the claim proven, and allowed the application with a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

The Applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 6,53,35,359/- with interest at specified rates from date of application till realization, including scheduled property sale proceeds.

State Bank of India versus M/S Vaishnavi Global Avenues and… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.236 ot 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2'd floor, TSRTC bus terminal complex (commuter Amenity centre), Koti, Hyderabad.

¶7

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Vaishnavi Global Avenues & Infra Solutions (p) Limited, Represented by its Managing director, Plot no.56, Cyber Meadows, Masjid banda, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500 084.

¶11

Sri Naidu Venkat Rao, Managing director of M/s. Vaishnavi Global Avenues & Infra SoluUons (P) Limited,^plot no.257, phase-3, Road no.78, lubilee hills, Hyderabad_33.

¶12

Sri Naidu Rajendra^prasad, major Director of M/s. Vaishnavi global Avenues & Infra Solutions (p) Ltd, Plot no.163, road no.72, prashasan Nagar, jubilee hills, Hyderabad _ 33.

¶13

Smt Naidu Nirmala Devi, major, Director of M/s. Vaishnavi global Avenues & Infra Solutions (p) Ltd, Plot no.163, road no.72, prashasan Nagar, jubilee hills, Hyderabad - 33.

¶14

(OA.No.236 of 2022 )

¶15

Smt N. Paripurna, major, Director of M/s. Vaishnavi global Avenues & Infra Solutions (p) Ltd, t-L55/ t, Guntapalli (post), Ibrahimpatnammandal, Krishna dist - S2t 241.

¶16

Defendants

¶17

Counsel for the Parties:

¶18

For the Applicant

¶19

For the Defendants

¶20

Sri P.V. Satyanarayana Sri SricharanTelaprolu

¶21

ORDER

¶22

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.6,53,35,359/_ (Rupees Six Crores Fifty Three Lakhs Thirty Five thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Eight only) i.e, a sum of Rs.5,34,54,723/_ for CC loan with interest @ 16.75olo p.a and a sum of Rs.1,18,80,635/_ for GECL loan with interest @ g.400lo p.awith monthry rests from date of application tiI the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged property and hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶23

As per the averments in the application, defendant no.2 is the Managing director of Defendant no.1 company and defendants 3 to 5 are the dir o.1 availed cash cred it loa n letter of arrangement +J" outsta nding *;,,.ffi w!" ", !:l "1.!

¶24

(OA.No.236 of 2022)

¶25

liability, the defendants 1 & 2 executed the agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 27.7.2012 in favour of the Bank. Defendants No.2 to 5 executed guarantee agreement dated 27.7.2012 in favour of the Applicant bank. Defendant no.5 deposited the title deeds relating to schedule mentioned property with an intention to create equitable mortgage. The above loan facility has been renewed on 77.L0.20L5 and the defendants executed necessary security documents vide letter of arrangement dated 17.lO.2OtS. The Applicant bank renewed the cc loan limit of Rs.5.00 crores and also sanctioned additional loan facility of stand by line of credit with a limit of Rs.1.25 Crores to the defendants on 14.0t.2020 and executed necessary loan documents.

¶26

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facility and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on 09.03.2022 and issued legal notice dated 09.07.2022. Inspite of demands made by Appricant the defendants have not regurarized the account, and the applicant bank issued notices but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is Rs.G,53,35,359/- (Rupees Six Crores Fifty Three Lakhs Thirty Five thousand Thr€e Hundred and Fifty

¶27

Eight only) i.e, a ,723/- for CC loan with interest @ 16.750lo^p.a 0,635/- for GECL loan with ;^76JUila$ ;

¶28

(oA.No.235 of 2022)

¶29

interest @ 9.40% p.a with monthly rests from date of application till date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶30

The Defendants filed Written statement denying the averments made in the OA. It is submitted that the defendant no.1 is the subcontractor to main contractor for respective Governments awarded the works. It is further submitted that during the end of December, 2021 the SBI, Yellareddyguda branch raised an issue by sending E- mail to defendant regarding the non-payment of GST. It is submitted that Govts of lharkhand and Andhra pradesh have not made payments of GST dues. While things stood thus, the Applicant bank classified the account as NPA on 09.03.2022. It is further submitted that the Applicant bank invoked the provisions of SARFAESI Act and as such the defendants challenged the same by filing SA.314 of 2022 before this Tribunal. This Tribunal passed interim orders granting stay of all further proceedings including auction held on 30.72.2022 subject to deposit of Rs.60 lakhs on or before 29.12.2022 and further sum of Rs.60.00 lakhs on or before 25.01.2023 by the defendants herein. Hence prayed for dismissal of oA.

¶31

During the cource gF{E lica nt Bank Sri P. t, Madhav nuo, rvulffiit rough him marked ffi,,ffi(:::::: 26 documentr a$ tr.a2r toJ6iPlszt^{s#5!ra vi:a} ya Ku mar, Senior ilo l\ r-'1. \5'. -.., 4 ,-P.+*::"..,.:r .1J','., .'.i:. \ 'f Wn-W'

¶32

(oA.No.236 of 2022)

¶33

Manager of defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1 on behalf of defendants and filed Exhibit B.1 to 8.26.

¶34

Heard the arguments.

¶35

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶36

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶37

ii) To what relief ?

¶38

Point No.i):

¶39

6' As per the materiar praced by the Appricant bank it is crear that defendants availed cash credit roan of Rs.5.00 crores against the hypothecation of entire current assets incruding stocks of raw materials, stores, receivables of the company and also mortgaged the schedule mentioned immovable property. The said loan facility was extended from time to time and the defendants executed ail necessary security documents with the Applicant Bank. It is crear that the defendants faired to submit GST returns and subsequenuy the Appricant bank crassified the account as NPA and RFESI proceedings demanding the defendants nding liability in the said toan accountdo.6ii6u"., u tse.rrur oftti documents executed by the bank .;ui .["F {H!,4fr ,d ant documents are

¶40

(OA.No.236 of 2022)

¶41

executed by the defendants in the normal course of transaction. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants are liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenable.Hence the applicant bank is entiued to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶42

Point No.ii)

¶43

B. In the resurt, the present originar apprication is a[owed with costs as under:

¶44

The Defendants No.1 to 5 are joinUy and severally liable to pay Applicant Bank a total Rs.6,53,3SBS9/_ (Rupees Six Crores Fifty Three Lakhs Thirty Five thousand rhree Hundred and Fifty Eight only) i.e, a sum of Rs.5,34,54,723/_ for CC loan with interest @ t6.75o/o p.a and a sum of Rs.1,18,g0,635/_ for GECL loan with interest @ 9.40olo p.a from date of apprication tiI the date of realization ;

¶45

The applicant ba ,,.$ against the mortgaged property and as described in schedule to OA. rtl '"d - '. ,'l {,^z6JUilm ^^i=,'J ;lI W*bP''

¶46

(oA.No.236 of 2022)

¶47

The Appricant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 5 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶48

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

¶49

The Applicant shalr fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶50

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶51

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶52

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of lune, 2024)

¶53

sd/-

¶54

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶55

ffuY€Pn

¶56

.b-2/1

¶57

lf ).,.-d,-tr ; -..r r.,.

State Bank of India v. M/S Vaishnavi Global Avenues and Infra Solutions (P) Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Vaishnavi Global Avenues and Infra Solutions (P) Limited

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

Sri Kishore Kumar Chindaliya versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus Sri Myana Bhanu Vijayanand

Indian Bank versus M/S. Tpr Enterprises

Navneet Agarwal versus State Bank of India

Navneet Agarwal versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Manikanta Plastic