Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Pj Agro Tech Limited

DRT1 Feb 2024OA/238/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the State Bank of India to recover advanced loans. The court found the bank established its claim through documentary evidence and ordered the defendants to pay the outstanding sum with interest and permitted enforcement against mortgaged and hypothecated properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 4,03,43,059/- plus future interest; Applicant Bank entitled to proceed against mortgaged and hypothecated properties; Issue Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus M/S Pj Agro Tech Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.238 ot 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Asset Recovery Management Branch (SARB-II) first floor, Opp Sandhya Theatre, RTC Cross roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, Telangana State. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. PJ Agro Tech Limited, Represented by its Directors The defendants 2 to 4 herein, Flat no.501A, SV's classic Residency, D. No.6-3-853/2, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500 016.

¶10

¶11

Branch office at D.No.19-8-30, Shop no.6, Srikanyakaparameswari Enclave, Etkur road, Guntur - 522 003

¶12

¶13

Branch ofFice at D.No.1B-4079/A,B,C, Ponnur road, Behind Kanaka Durgamma Temple, Guntur - 522 003.

¶14

Sri GadePurna Chandra prabhu, s/o Sri Venkata Krishna Rao, aged about 68 years, male, occ: business and director of 1st defendant company,

¶15

#w%
* [1:,1 ?$2q y
k+**

¶16

(oA.No,238/2023)

¶17

Flat no. 101, M.No.7-1-397 / tSL/ Llt, H.No.12B, Street no.9, surya palace, Sanjeeva Reddy nagar, Hyderabad - 38. 3. Smtcade Janaki, w/o Sri GadePurna Chandra Prabhu, aged about 61 years, female, occ: business and director of 1st defendant company, Flat no. 101, M.No,7-1-397 / tsJ/ t}t, H.No.12B, Street no.9, surya palace, Sanjeeva Reddy nagar, Hyderabad - 38.

¶18

4.	Sri GadeVenkataPrashanth, s/oSri GadePurna Chandra^prabhu, agedabout 36 years,male, occ:businessand directorof 1't defendantcompany,
	Flatno.101,M.No.7-1-397/tit/tlt, H.No.12B,Streetno.9, suryapalace,
	Sanjeeva Reddynagar,Hyderabad-3g. Defendants

¶19

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant Sri G. PrabhakarSarma For the Defendants Exparte

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.4,03,43,O59/- (Rupees Four

¶22

Crores Three lakhs

¶23

Crores Three lakhs thousand and fifty Eight onty)
i.e.,
fl'.8-
B"-N
iN* o1
ilB z[2l .j:
. FeY,1
qto ...',-."a:$ffi/
virii'W'

¶24

(oA.No.238/2023)

¶25

a) a sum of Rs.71,16,566/- under cash credit roan with interest @ L7.250/op.a with monthry rests from the date of oA til the date of realization;

¶26

b) a sum of Rs.2,48,30,196/- under wcrL account with interest @ 17.25o/op.a with monthry rests from the date of oA tiil the date of rea lization ;

¶27

c) a sum of Rs.15,71,577/- under FITL account with interest @ L7.250/op.a with monthry rests from the date of oA tilr the date of realization;

¶28

d)a sum of Rs.35,87,319/- under GECL account with interest @ 9.250/op.a with monthry rests from the date of oA tiil the date of realization;

¶29

e) a sum of Rs.32,37,400/- under GECL-I account with interest @ 9'250/op.a with monthry rests from the date of oA ti[ the date of realization;

¶30

and in default for sale of mortgaged and hypothecated properties as described in the schedules^..A to D,, to OA.

¶31

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No,1 is a Company represented by directors/ defendants 2 to 4 avaired cash credit roan of Rs.160 rakhs and bank guarantee of Rs.200 rakhs r,-vlftf-rWgliijlilBfifies of Rs.360 takhs vide sanction tetter dated ,,U.^{';ftffi"'PQ\or"} repayment or overall facilities of Rs'"' \t lift fflllnqn'tererdEnt^{no'1 companv} i'n:t ' ,;;i W;1',,,ffi ii;:_r:z'i*,i';;'t-,'

¶32

(oA.No.238/2023)

¶33

represented by its director defendant no.3 executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation on 28,05.201g, Defendants 2 to 4 guaranteed the payment and executed guarantee agreement on 28.05'2018. Subsequenuy cash credit roan was enhanced from Rs'160 lakhs to Rs.330 rakhs and reduced Bank guarantee facirity from Rs'200 rakhs to Rs.30 rakhs vide retter of arrangement dated 05.02.2019. on account of covid-2019 pandemic, the defendant no.1 company availed working capital demand loan (WCDL) of Rs.205 lakhs by reducing existing cash credit loan from Rs.330 lakhs to Rs.125 lakhs and arso avaired GECL of Rs.60 rakhs whire continuing existing bank guarantee facility of Rs.30 lakhs on OZ.OS.2O2O. On 28.t2.2021 the defendant no.1 company availed GECL_I of Rs.19 lakhs and executed supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation. On 28.05.2018, the defendants 1,3 and 4 created equitable mortgage and the same was extended from time to time over respective immovable properties more fully described in the schedule "A to C" to OA. Defendant no.1 company hypothecated all the stocks, current assets, equipments, book debts, receivables and other assets etc to the Appricant Bank more fulry described in the schedule "D" to OA. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction; hence the applicant bank was constra account as NPA and ,B.N Insflip" .bf several requests i,i;'.ffi 01 t i: 8 zffZl^*i I u I r o lulq Li -t \tL *, -".;l W

¶34

(oA.No.238/2023)

¶35

and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA,

¶36

3' Defendants 1 to 4 cailed absent and set exparte on 02.or.2024.

¶37

Shri Ch. Raghavender Rao, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A. 1 to A.50.

¶38

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶39

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶40

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶41

Defendants cailed absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.50. In view of the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Appricant Bank is entitred to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest anO cost7.ffi

¶42

In the result, the

¶43

.P ,^{asu nder:} 1'"'l,,'5iff^*i: 5

¶44

(oA.No.238/2023)

¶45

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.4,O3,43,OSgl- (Rupees Four Crores Three lakhs Forty three thousand and fifty Eight only) i.e.,

¶46

a) a sum of Rs.71,16,566/_ under cash credit loan with interest @ 17,2So/op.a from the date of OA till the date of realization ;

¶47

b) a sum of Rs.2,4g,30,196/_ under WCTL account with interest @ 77.250/op.a from the date of oA tiil the date of rearization ;

¶48

c) a sum of Rs,15,71,5771- under FITL account with interest @ L7.250/op.a from the date of oA tifl the date of rearization ;

¶49

d) a sum of Rs.35,g7,319/- under GECL account with interest @ 9.25o/op.a from the date of OA till the date of realization ;

¶50

e) a sum of Rs.32,3r,400/- under GECL-I account with interest @ 9.25o/op.a from the date of OA till the date of realization ;

¶51

The Applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the Mortgaged and

¶52

Hypothecated properties as described in the schedules "A to D^,, to

¶53

OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶54

the Appricant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶55

The Applicant Bank is

¶56

(oA.No.238/2023)

¶57

13' The Appricant sha, fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶58

of receipt of order.

¶59

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶60

15' communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶61

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, siqned _ a court on this tne r", iav oiieo,zoz+l rnd pronounced by me in the open

¶62

sd/(G. coPtCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶63

o1;:r1 ,02{
ij

¶64

}RUE @OPY A Ll 9'f*;/ffi Isst Pegrsir.r DFI..!, trY058nB.4!.

State Bank of India v. M/S Pj Agro Tech Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Pj Agro Tech 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

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Shri Gugloth Rajesh Naik

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Kakatiya Cotton Industries

State Bank of India versus Sri. Pradeep Chandra M.S

Indian Bank versus M/S. Sri Sai Logistics

Tummala Anitha versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Indian Bank versus Mrs. N. Visalakshi