Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Venkata Laxmi Agro Industries

DRT24 Jun 2024OA/241/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for the recovery of loan dues totaling over Rs. 5.15 crores, including principal and interest from various loan accounts, establishing the bank's claim via documentary evidence. The court declared defendants jointly and severally liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendants declared jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 5,15,91,229/- with interest; Applicant entitled to proceed against mortgaged properties and defendant assets; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Venkata Laxmi Agro Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE' 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.241 ot 2023

¶4

Between:

¶5

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

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. VenkataLaxmi Agro Industries, A partnership firm, represented by Its partners- the defendants 2 to 6 herein

¶9

Sy.No.72BlA, Palda village, Jannepally road, Narayanpur, Nizamabad - 503 246.

¶10

Sri Kuna Viswanatham, s/o Sri Kuna ChinnaBashaiah, male, aged about 64 years, occ: business & pa rtner of 1't defendant firm, H.No.6-8-222, Namdevwada, Nizamabad - 503 002.

¶11

Sri Kuna Venugopal, s/o Sri Kuna Viswanatham, male, aged about 44 years, occ: business and partner of 1't defendant firm, H.No.6-8-222, Namdevwada, Nizamabad - 503 002.

¶12

2 Ll ;uH ryl

¶13

Smt Kuna Revathi, W/o Sri Kuna Venugopal,

¶14

(OA. No.24112023)

¶15

Female, aged about 41 years, Occ: business & partner of 1st defendant firm, H.No.6-8-222, Namdevwada, Nizamabad - 503 002.

¶16

Sri Kuna Vamshi Krishna, s/o Sri Kuna Viswanatham, male, aged about 38 years, occ: business and partner of 1't defendant firm. H.No.8-r-t36/A/72, Street no. 12, Maruthinagar, Sheikpet, Hyderabad - 500 008.

¶17

Smt Kuna Srija, w/o Sri Kuna Vamshi Krishna, female aged about 31 years, occ: business and partner of 1't defendant firm,

¶18

H.No.B-r-136/A/72,

¶19

Street no. 12, Maruthinagar, Sheikpet, Hyderabad - 500 008.

¶20

Defendants

¶21

Counsel for the Parties:

¶22

For the Applicant

¶23

For the Defendants

¶24

Srl G. Prabhakar Sarma

¶25

Expa rte

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.5,15,91,229l- (Rupees Five Crores

¶28

Fifteen lakhs Ninety one hundred and Twetny

nine only) i.e.,

2^l, JUN^mll

(oA. No.24112023)

a) A sum of Rs.2,02,92,842/- under cash credit loan account with interest @L7.25o/o p.a with monthly rests from 09.08.2023 till the date of realization;

¶33

b) A sum of Rs2,36,62,045/- under term loan account with interest @ 10.40olo^p.a with^{monthly rests from 09.08.2023till the date of} realization;

¶34

c) A surn of Rs.13,92,042l- under GECL-I loan account^{with interest} @ 9.25olo^{p.a with monthly rests from 09.08.2023 till the date of} rea lization ;

¶35

d) A sum of Rs.25,83,696/under GECL-II loan account^with interest @ 9.25o/o P.a^with monthly rests from 09.08.2023^{till the} date of realization;

¶36

e) A sum of Rs.36,60,604/-^{under GECL-III loan account with} interest @ 9.25%^p.a with^{monthly rests from 09.08'2023till the} date of realization;

¶37

and in default for^{sale of mortgaged immovable propertiesand} hypothecated movables^{as describedin the schedules "A to G" to} oA.

¶38

As per the averments in the application, the^{Applicant Bankstates} that defendant^No.1is lakhs and term loan^of

¶39

its partners availed^ca Rs.360 lakhs vide^I the defendants

¶40

secure due rePaYm

¶41

(OA. No.24112023)

¶42

executed agreement of^{loan cum hypothecation.Defendants 2 to 6} guaranteed the repayment and executed^{guarantee agreementon} 04.10.2019. subsequently^{the defendants availedGECL facility of} Rs.30 lakhs vide letter of^{arrangement dated01.06.2020. The SME} branch of Applicant^{bankenhancedthe GECLloan from Rs.30 lakhs} to Rs.70.00 lakhs and^{reducedcash credit of Rs'75 lakhsand} continuing the term^{loan of rs.360 lakhs on 2l'12'2020'Later the} cash credit limit^{was enhancedfrom Rs.75 lakhs to Rs.225 lakhs on} 22.t|.202t.^{The Applicant bank sanctionedoverall facilitiesof} Rs.620 lakhs and^{on 19.08.2022 the defendants3 to 6 created} equitable of^{immovable properties more fully descried in the} schedules A to^{F to oA.After availing the loan facilities,the} defendants^{failed to comply the terms of sanction'hence the} applicant bank^{was constrainedto classifythe accountas NPA and} issued legal^{notice dated 05.07'2023'Inspite of several requests} and demands.^{the defendantsdid not clearthe outstanding'Hence} this OA.

¶43

Defendants^{No.1 to 6 called absentand set exparte on 0B'04'2024'}

¶44

Shri L. RavindraNaik,^{Chief Manager of the ApplicantBank examined} himself as AW.1^{and exhibitedrelevant docu} are marked as Ex.A'1^{to A.33.} //.*

¶45

docu are
//.*
!,it

¶46

Heard the Ld.^{Counselfor the Applicant Ba}

¶47

loA.No.2a7/2023)

¶48

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?

¶49

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.33.^In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank^{has established} their claim made in the OA against the^{Defendantsand hence the} Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the^{claim made in the OA with} future interest and costs.

¶50

B. In the result, the^present OA^is allowed^{with costs, as under:}

¶51

The Defendants are^jointly and^{severallyliable to pay to the} Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.5,15,9L,2291-^{(Rupees Five} Crores Fifteen lakhs Ninety^{one thousand Two hundred and} Twenty nine only) i.e.,

¶52

a) A sum of Rs.2,02,92,842/-^{under cash credit loan account with} -...;.,... .-.. "..-

¶53

interest @17.25o/o P.a IE 8.2023 till the date of

¶54

realization;
"f<br>$tr
\i
*\i
2qJUilM(
.-,,;
':i

¶55

(oA.No.24112023)

¶56

b) A sum of Rs2,36,62,045/- under term loan account with interest @ 10.40olo p.a from 09.08.2023 till the date of realization;

¶57

c) A sum of Rs.13,92,042/- under GECL-I loan account with interest @ 9.25olo p.a from 09.08.2023 till the date of realization;

¶58

d) A sum of Rs.25,83,696/- under GECL-II loan account with interest @ 9.25olo p.a from 09.08.2023 till the date of realization;

¶59

e) A sum of Rs.36,60,604/- under GECL-III loan account with interest @ 9.25olo p.a from 09.08.2023 till the date of realization;

¶60

The Applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the mortgaged properties and hypothecated movables as described in schedules "A to G" to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶61

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to^proceed against the^person and^properties of defendants No.2 to 6 and^properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶62

The Applicant Bank is e the OA.

¶63

(OA.No.241l2023)

¶64

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶65

of receipt of order.

¶66

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶67

Communicate a copy of the order to the^parties concerned.

¶68

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and^pronounced by meⁱⁿ the^open court on this the 24th day of lune'2024)

sdl-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

2 4 JUN 7024

RU
{*tgX,'uz'1'
onr.t, iii1'ili::,

State Bank of India v. M/S. Venkata Laxmi Agro Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Venkata Laxmi Agro Industries

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

Bank of India versus M/S. Svs Upvc Windows and Doors

Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Sai Balaji Pooja Samagri

Union Bank of India versus M/S Neeraja Constructions

State Bank of India versus Sri Myana Bhanu Vijayanand

Indian Bank versus M/S. Tpr Enterprises

Sri Kishore Kumar Chindaliya versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited