Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Akhila Gardens

DRT27 Mar 2024OA/250/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Order of Application filed by State Bank of India against M/s. Akhila Gardens and Sri Marapalli Srinivasa Chary for recovery of Rs. 70.35 lacs principal, future interest, and costs, permitting sale of mortgaged property.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 70,35,450/- with future interest directed; applicant bank permitted to proceed against mortgaged property and other assets; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Akhila Gardens — Money Laundering | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.25O of 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal Complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Akhila Gardens, Proprietor Sri Marapalli Srinivasachary, Sy.No.7 62/ B/ 2, Kamareddygudem, Devaruppula Mandal, langaon - 506 302.

¶10

Sri MarapalliSrinivasa chary, s/o Brahma Chary, H.no.4-3-51l1, Gundlagadda, Jangaon -506 167.

¶11

-506 167.167. Defendants
aq
ESh
Expa
ORDER
the present present OA for

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

For the Applicant

¶14

For the Defendants

¶15

The Applicant Bank filed the present present OA

¶16

recovery of a total sum of Rs.7O,35,450/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Thirty Five thousand Four hundred and Fifty only) i.e.,

¶17

(oA.No.250 of 2023)

¶18

a) A sum of Rs.60,28,t57/- in respect of toan account No.37854483505with future interest @ 14. Lio/o p.a with monthly rests from date of the application till the date of realization;

¶19

b) A sum of Rs.10,07 ,293/- in respect of loan account No.402BBB09967with future interest @ 17.25o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of the application till the date of realization; and in default for sale of mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a firm represented by its proprietor defendant No.2 availed MSME loan of Rs.50.OO lakhs for purchase of materials and construction of function hall vide arrangement letter dated 03.08.2018. To secure due repayment of aforesaid MSME loan, the defendants executed memorandum for recording mortgage by deposit of title deeds dated 04.08.2018 vide document no.75go/2ot} and a copy of regd gift settlement deed dated 08.03.2018 bearing no.2277/2018. Subsequently the defendants availed additional facilities and enhanced protection rimit to an extent of Rs.7,g3,ooo/on 10.06.2022. After a.llailing the loan facilities, the defendants

¶21

failed to comply hence the applicant bank was constrained to sify t NPA on 28.10.2022 and issued dema *notift 7 tdffieffilDz. 23. Inspite of several

¶22

(oA.No.250 of 2023)

¶23

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

¶24

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 29.02.2024.

¶25

sri G. Prasad, ChiefManager of the Appricant Bank examined himserf as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.14.

¶26

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶27

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?

¶28

7' 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.14. 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 to e in the OA with

¶29

future interest and costs.

¶30

?t$r[lm *

¶31

(OA.No.2s0 of 2023)

¶32

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

¶33

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.70,35,45O1- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs Thirty Five thousand Four hundred and Fifty only) i.e.,

¶34

a) A sum of Rs.6O,2B,t57/- in respect of loan account No.37854483505 with future interest @ 14.15% p.a from date of the application till the date of realization;

¶35

b) A sum of Rs.I0,07,293/- in respect of loan account No.40288809967 with future interest@ L7.25o/o p.a from date of the application till the date of realization;

¶36

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged immovable property as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

2THtRmt

¶41

(OA.No.250 of 2023)

¶42

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶43

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶44

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of March,2024)

¶45

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶46

ffi
li .* ? 7 t'lAR 2u2! #
{i..rt , ., .n-#'
''*rl- ; ZEitt ,!--;''

¶47

TRUE COPY
A r€;ffi

¶48

Assf.

¶49

ORT.I, iSYAERABAD.

State Bank of India v. M/S. Akhila Gardens

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Akhila Gardens

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

Union Bank of India versus v. S. Constructions and Developers

Smt Meera Thakur versus Central Bank of India

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S. Kunda Transformers Private Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Classic Alluminium Profile Industry

Indian Bank versus Mr. Konkati Ramakrishna

State Bank of India versus M/S. Bhavani Shanker Steel and Furniture