Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Sri Durga Packaging

DRT30 Jul 2024OA/251/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal allowed the Objectionable Application filed by State Bank of India to recover a debt. The bank claimed Rs. 44,70,525/ with interest from two loan accounts. The tribunal held the bank established its case and directed repayment and sale of hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs. 44,70,525/- with interest; Bank entitled to sell hypothecated assets and proceed against defendant properties; Recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S Sri Durga Packaging — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 3OTH DAY OF JULY'2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING^OFFICER

OA.No.251 ol 2023

Between:

State Bank of India,

Stressed Assets Recovery branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095.

¶8

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶9

Applicant

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

M/s. Sri Durga Packaging, Rep by its Managing Partner, SmtSavitha Devi, W/o Chitta Ranjan Kumar, major, female, Plot/building/ flat no.07^-062/ 5, Subhashnagar, IDA Jeedimetla, Hyderabad - 500 055.

¶12

SmtSavitha Devi, w/o ChittaRanjan Kumar, major, female, managing Pa^rtner of M/s. Durga Packaging, R/o H.No.4-41-32, PaPireddYnagar, Near Rajdhani High School, Jagadgirigutta, Balanagar, Hyderabad - 500 037.

¶13

Sri Mathu Suresh^Kumar, s/o Mithlesh Prasad, major, male, partner of M/s. Sri Durga Packaging, R/o H.No.24-1351, Lenin nagar, IDA Jeedimetla, Quthbullapurmandal, Hyderabad - 500 055.

¶14

30 JUt mzf

¶15

(OA.No.251 of 2023)

¶16

Counsel for the Parties:

¶17

For the Applicant Sri P.V. Satyanarayana For the Defendants Exparte

¶18

Exparte

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA against^{Defendants for} recovery of a total sum of Rs.44,7O,525/-^{(Rupees Forty Four} Lakhs Seventy thousand Five hundred and^{Twenty five only)} i .€.,

¶21

a) A sum of Rs.32,86,217l-in^{respect of Cash credit account with} interest @ 11.9olo^p.a with monthly^{rests from the date of filing of} OA till the date of realization;

¶22

b) A sum of Rs.11,84,308/-^{in respect of Term loan account with} interest @ 11.9olo^p.a with^{monthly rests from the date of filing of} OA till the date of realization;

¶23

and in default for sale of^{hypothecated assetsas describedin the} scheduleto OA.

¶24

As per the averments in the^{application, the ApplicantBankstates} that defendant No.2^is the^{managingpartner of defendant no.1and} 3 availed cash credit of Rs.30'00^I term loan limit of Rs.12.30 lakhs totallY Defendants no.1 to 3 J::,:KffiM,'::::::: defenda nts vide retter or arrangem"nt iaot"o 3$.d[bffib. i , .^,""5 ir , \i"1,1. -P.s wry

¶25

(OA.No.251 of 2023)

¶26

executed agreement of loan cum^{hypothecation and guarantee} agreement dated 19.03.2022.^{After availingthe loan facilities, the} defendants failed to comply the^terms of^{sanction, hence the} applicant bank was constrained^{to classifythe accountas NPA and} issued legal notice dated 29.08.2023.^{Inspite of severalrequests} and demands, the defendants^{did not clearthe outstanding.Hence} this OA.

¶27

Defendants 1 to 3 called absent^{and set exparte on 01.04'2024'}

¶28

Smt K. Geeta^{Lakshmi,Managerof the Applicant Bank examined} herself as AW.1 and exhibited^{relevant documents,whichare} marked as Ex.A.1 to^A.10.

¶29

Heard the^{Ld. Counselfor the Applicant Bank.}

¶30

The^point that^{arise for consideration is whether the ApplicantBank is} entitled for the claim^{made in the oA against the Defendantsas} PraYed^for?

¶31

Defendants called^{absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case} al of the Applicant^{Bank was}

¶32

of the Applicant Bank,^AW.1 examined and he exnioiVdlffih,fdft*"^{as Ex'A1 to A'10' In} 7c*

¶33

;'";;1r"," If';.;&^offiu"nk rt^{hasestabrished} ii

¶34

their claim made initne^{od&ul6gtffi+o#e'$oantsand hence the}

¶35

Wrni$y'

¶36

(OA.No.251 of 2023)

¶37

Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶38

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

¶39

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.44,lO,SZSt- (Rupees Forty Four Lakhs Seventy thousand Five hundred and Twenty five only)

¶40

i.€.,

¶41

a) A sum of Rs.32,86,217l- in respect of Cash credit account with interest @ 11.9olo p.afrom the date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶42

b) A sum of Rs.11,84,308/- in respect of Term loan account with interest @ 11.9olo p.afrom the date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶43

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

¶44

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2& 3 and properties of defendant

¶45

no. 1 firm.

¶46

The Applicant Bank

¶47

(OA.No.251 of 2023)

¶48

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

¶49

L4. Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶50

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶51

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3oth day of )uly,2024)

¶52

sdl_ (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶53

*
j' r:1"

State Bank of India v. M/S Sri Durga Packaging

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Sri Durga Packaging

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

State Bank of India versus Era Educational Society

State Bank of India versus Mr. Kesupaka Seetha Rama Raju

Ms Bhaggya Laxmi Enterprises versus Uco Bank

State Bank of India versus Smt. Gavva Vara Lakshmi

Indian Bank versus M/S. Dhandem Anandam

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Spyksz Spa