Allowed

State Bank of India v. the Adilabad Expressway Private Limited

DRT23 Oct 2024OA/259/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an OA filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues of Rs.14,85,71,231.65 plus future interest against Adilabad Expressway Private Limited, noting that respondents 2-5 are pro forma parties to be paid in proportion from sale proceeds.

What did the court decide?

The respondent was directed to pay Rs.6,77,88,970.85 plus future interest; Applicant is entitled to proceed against hypothecated properties.

State Bank of India versus the Adilabad Expressway Private… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS^{RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-IAT HYDERABAD}

¶2

DATED THIS^{THE 23RD DAYOF OCTOBER,2024}

¶3

PRESENT: SRI^{GUMMADI GOPICHAND,PRESIDING OFFICER}

¶4

OA.No'259^{OF 2022}

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank^{of India,}

¶7

Stressed^{Assets ManagementBranch,} ltt floor, Commuter^{AmenityCentre,} (CAC) TSRTC Bus^{Station, Kachiguda,} Hyderabad -^{500 027.}

¶8

Represented^{by its Asst Gen Manager}

¶9

Applicant

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

1, The^{Adilabad Expressway PrivateLimited'} RePresented^{bY its Director,}

¶12

Plot no.1+,^{Avenue4, Banjara Hills'} HYderabad -^{500 034'}

¶13

The Punjab^{National Bank,} Large CorPorate^Branch' a-iolt,^{sufi chambers, Road}

¶14

No.1, Banjara^Hills, HYderabad -^{500 034'}

¶15

Union^{Bank of India,} (E- CorPoration^Bank) boor no. 1-2-235,^Parklane' M.G. Road,^{Secunderabad'}

¶16

Indian Overseas^Bank, Door No.B-2120ltUPl, First floor,^{Punnaiah Plaza'} Jubilee^{hills branch, road no'2} HYderabad -^{500 034'}

¶17

United^{Commercial Bank'} FlagshiP^{CorPorate CreditBranch'} D.No.6-3-^{I 108, ground floor'} Navbharat^{chambers,Rajbhavan}

¶18

(oA. No.259/2022 )

¶19

Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082.

¶20

Defendants

¶21

(Defendants No.2 to 5 are proforma pa rties)

¶22

Counsel for the Parties:

¶23

For the Applicant Sri M.V. Janaki Ram For the Defendants 1 Sri SVS Chowdary& Co., Defendant no.2 Mrs. Kalpana Ekbote Defendants 3 to 5 Exparte

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The Applicant Bank filed the^{presentOA against Defendant No.1 for}

¶26

recovery of a total sum of Rs.14,85,71,231.65ps^(Rupees Fourteen Crores Eighty Five^{Lakhs SeventyOne thousand Two} hundred Thirty One and^{paise Sixty Five only) i.e.,}

¶27

a) A sum of Rs.10,32,13,616.33ps^{under term loan accountwith} further interest @ 10.50o/o^{p.a with monthly rests from date of} application till the date^{of realization;}

¶28

b) A sum of Rs.4,53,57,615.32ps^{under additional term loan-Il} account with further interest @^{9.75o/o p.a with monthlyrests} from date of application^{till the date of realization;}

¶29

And in default for^sale ovables as describedⁱⁿ the schedule to OA.

¶30

As per the the Applicant Bank

¶31

that the registered u nder

¶32

(oA. No.2s912022)

¶33

Companies Act. It is submitted that along with Applicant bank some other banks have also sanctioned certain credit facilities under consortium to defendant no.1 i.e. Oriental bank of commerce since amalgamated to Punjab National Bank (Defendant no.2). Similarly Corporation bank has also sanctioned certain credit facilities to defendant no.1 company which was amalgamated with Union Bank of India (defendant no.3). The defendants no.2 to 5 are proformaparties and the Applicant bank is not seeking any reliefs against defendants 2 to 5. The defendant no.1 availed Rs.50.00 crores vide sanction letter dated tL.12.2007 and executed the common loan agreement and deed of hypothecation dated 14.03.2008. The defendant no.1 company executed deed of undertaking cum indemnity the aforesaid consortium banks as^India Infrastructure Finance Company Limited agreed to take out some of the liabilities. The defendant no.1 availed additional term^loan of Rs.4.B9 crores on 26.12.2016. On 15.03.2017 the defendant no.1 executed a facility agent agreement in favour of^{consortium lenders} i.e., defendants 2 to 5. The defendant no.1 executed a^{revival letter} dated 19.03.2020 in favour of OBC^(lead bank)^{confirmingthe} availment of credit facilities and execution of^{documents in favour of} all consortium len owledged the debt due.

¶34

It iS licant bank that the Defendants have t.'i'the satFioan and failed to keep uP the count was classified as NPA. repayment ,"."oJu] $gl;Lql W**,*rS

¶35

(oA.No.2s9l2022)

¶36

Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendant no.1 has not regularized the account, and the Applicant bank issued legal notice dated 25.07.2022 but the defendant no.1 did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendant No.1 isof Rs.14,85,7L,231.65ps (Rupees Fourteen Crores Eighty Five Lakhs Seventy One thousand Two hundred Thirty One and paise Sixty Five only) with future interest @ 10.50o/o p.a and Rs.9.75% p.a with monthly rests from date of application till realization. Hence the OA.

¶37

The Defendant No.1 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It was contended that the Applicant bank is not entitled to exercise any rights without the consent of other consortium members and contended that the Applicant bank did not follow the RBI guidelines while classifying the account as NPA. It is further contended that the statement of account which was relied upon is false and fabricated one and not supported with a proper certificate in terms of Banker's Books of Evidence Act, 1891. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶38

Defendant no.2 bank filed written statement and submitted

¶39

that defendant no.1 m pay the amount due and a ppropriate the o property as mentioned in OA amongst j{ftplican nk and.a fendants no.2 to 5 in proportion to th ndant no.1.

¶40

(OA.No.2s9l2022)

¶41

Defendants no.1 exa mined himself as DW.l but not filed any

¶42

docu me nts.

¶43

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶44

Heard the arguments.

¶45

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶46

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

¶47

ii) To what relief ?

¶48

Point No.i):

¶49

Sri SrinivasaSarma, Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1to A.29 exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly establish the liability of the defendants. The Applicant bank filed part satisfaction memo stating that defendant no.1 paid a sum of Rs.8,O7,82,160.80ps subsequent to filing of OA.

¶50

AW.1 was not c the defendants. Even though defendant No. .1, his evidence is in noway ffi;:ffi,"'#H helpful to hi f'"^{,'t't t'fr'N" ':i} ving taken the plea that the applicant ban fl^{no.t follow} the^R8H, delines and that the present -@lrmP'

¶51

(oA. No.2s912022)

¶52

OA was barred by limitation, failed to place any substantial proof to that efFect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents exhibited by the Applicant Bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendants in the normal course of transaction. The defendant No.1 very vaguely contended that particulars made in the OA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendant No.1is liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendant No.1 is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendant no.1. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendant No.1.

¶53

Point No.ii)

¶54

B. In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as u n der:

¶55

The Defendant No.1 is liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.14,85,71,231.65ps (Rupees Fourteen Crores Eighty Five Lakhs Seventy One thousand Two hundred Thirty One and paise Sixty Five only) LESS A SUM OF RS.8,O7,82,160.80PS paid by defendants;

¶56

a) A sum of Rs.10,3 nder term loan account with further inte o ro. !ate^{of application till the} date oF reali

¶57

(oA. No.2s912022)

¶58

b) A sum of Rs.4,53,57,615.32ps under additional term loan-II account with further interest @ 9.75o/o p.afrom date of application till the date of realization;

¶59

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the hypothecated properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due, however the sale proceeds be adjusted/ appropriated among the applicant bank and defendants no.2 to 5 in proportion to the outstanding due.

¶60

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

¶61

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

¶62

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶63

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶64

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23'd day of - Oct' 2024)

sd/-

,-S'r",'rt:':li:il

23 0[Im

TRUE^COPY //. /t-----^T--'J /Jo""rK"fr,r, { i ( " l't l' o /vtn DRI''! '^llYl'.t'"""-

State Bank of India v. the Adilabad Expressway Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. the Adilabad Expressway Private 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

Smt Islavath Bujji versus Canara Bank

Ms Mourya Enterprises versus State Bank of India

M S Sai Kiran Granites versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Vistan Next Gen Pvt. Ltd.

Mrs Kailas Sulochana versus State Bank of India

Idbi Bank Limited versus M/s. Sri Rama Plastics