Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/s. Santoshi Mata Auto Services

DRT20 Nov 2024OA/260/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed State Bank of India applicant's recovery plea against five defendants for unpaid loans, enforcing hypothecation and mortgage terms.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs.72,22,843/- with interest; applicant to proceed against mortgaged properties; issue of recovery certificate.

What the court decided

State Bank of India versus M/s. Santoshi Mata Auto Services — DRT (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 2OTH DAY OF NOVEMBER'2r,24

¶2

PRESENT: sRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESTDING oFFICER OA.No.26O of 2024

¶3

Between :

¶4

State Bank of India. SARB-II, Chikkadoailv Opp Sandhya Theatre.' RTC "X" roads, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. Santhoshi Mata Auto Serv i ces. Represented by proorietoi^{-vi r vsJ,} Sri ManchikatlaDayakar, Sy. No.686/4, N.ear 1 T_own police Station, .lunugu;J Village, Godavarikhani _ 505 2O;.

¶8

Sri M.anchikatlaDayakar, s/o Kishtaiah, aged major, 313:?::!""r^{R/o H' No.1 e- B-2s 1,} :?1Tinug.ur,^{Godavarikhani,} Peddapaltidist _ 505 209.

¶9

Sri ManchikaUaVenkataSwamy, s/o Kistaiah, aged 65 years,

¶10

313-?.1!!"t'r^{R/o H. No.1 e-B-2e1,} Laxminagar, Godavarikhan i, Peddapallidist - 505 209.

¶11

Also at

¶12

Commercial buildinq. f:u1i1o.^{yrn.ipar ruo.r s_s_ r+s,} _19-B-149,^{19-B_150,19_8_151} il:jIg^{6:4, Laxminasar tocatity,} rangaon village, peddapalli orsrnct- 505 209.

¶13

2 0 ilotl z02t
t**n#

¶14

(OA.No.260 of 2024)

¶15

SkriManch ikafla Karu na ka r, s/o Kistaiah, aged 48 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.19_g_Zgt, Laxminagar, Godavarikhan i, Peddapalidist - SOS 209.

¶16

Also at;

¶17

Open plot in sy.No.654, Laxminagar locality, Jangaon village, peddapalli district- 505 209.

¶18

SmtMa nch ikaUa Rajeswa ri, Wo Kishtaiah, aged B1 yea.s, Occ: household, R/o H.Nto. f g_g_Zgf , Laxminagar, Godavarikhan i, Peddapailidist - 505 209.

¶19

Also at

¶20

Commercial buildino. ?:ul,ls.^{rr4uncipatN6. r s-e_r+s,} -19-B-149,^{19_B_150,19_B_151} li_rll"^{6.:4, Laxminagartocatity,} Jangaon village, peddaDalli district- 505 209.

¶21

Defendants

¶22

Counsel for the parUes:

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

Sri M. VenkatDivakar

Exparte

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present recovery of a total sum of Rs.72,22,84?/Seventy-T Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Fo'idy only) i.e.,

¶29

(OA.No.260 of 2024)

¶30

a) A sum of Rs.52,31,023/- under loan A/c. No.62011393338 with further interest @ ll.5Oo/o p.a with monthly rests from 14.06.2024 till the date of realisation;

¶31

b) A sum of Rs.19,91,820/- under loan a/c.4o74lggg64| with further interest @ g.B0o/o p.a with monthly rests & 2o/o penal interest from L4.06.2024 till the date of realisation;

¶32

and in default for sale of mortgaged properties as described in the schedule "A to C., to OA.

¶33

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendants No.1&2 availed cash credit toan of Rs.15.00 lakhs on 18.7.2006 and executed agreement of hypothecation of goods and assets dated 18.07.2006. Derendant no.3 stood as guarantor to the said roan and executed guarantee agreement. Defendant no.3 also mortgaged his commerciar buirdings more fulry described in schedule A to OA. Defendants further availed a sum of Rs.1B.OO lakhs under GECL Ext_WCfL on 21.02.2023. Defendants 4 and 5 also stood as guarantors and executed supplementary agreement of loan cum hypothecation and mo .: and C properties to oA. After avaiting tne roan fliri,r,'ffi o"X s faited to comply the terms of sanction, hence rhg Bppligarfi{banot}}, .onr,.ained ro classify the account as NpA ,^ rr.rrrr"l-r, 23 an! ,&rg demand notice 4<^{,':- .} 23.04.2024. rnspite or severar ,"rmpSiiigio o. $l;;#;,^demands,rhe defendants did not ctear rhe outsB'-ioing:t i;dr"this oA.

¶34

(OA.No.260 of 2024)

¶35

Defendants No. 1 to 5 are called absent and set exparte on

¶36

2t.t0.2024.

¶37

Sri Saroj Mishra, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as

¶38

AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as

¶39

Ex.A.1 to A.29.

¶40

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

prayed for?

¶44

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.2g. 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 enti'ed to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶45

¶46

is allowed with costs, as under: and severally liable to pay to the nppriiant 8uff nillU,t{S rr,.r. Rs.7 2,22,g43l- (Rupees Seventy .€.9

¶47

(OA.No.260 of 2024)

¶48

Two Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Three only) i.e,,

¶49

a) A sum of Rs.52,31,023/_ under loan A/c. No.6201139333g with further interest @ 11.50olo p.a from L4.06.2024 till the date of realisation;

¶50

b) A sum of Rs.19,91,820/- under loan a/c.4l74}ggg64l with further interest @ B.BO% p.a from t4.06.2024 till the date of realisaUon;

¶51

9' The Appricant bank is entired to proceed against the mortgaged properties as described in schedure to oA towards rearization of the debt due.

¶52

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person

¶53

and properties of defendants No.2 to 5 and properties of defendant

¶54

no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

of receipt of order.

¶58

Issue Recovery certificate aceordingly. 14. Com of the order to the parties concerned.

¶59

,^corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on

¶60

sd/?tl^ltl8\JIil i rt*y,rcoPY^{r"J:lr',ff':llliJ} '" on7'l''i1/-i:-ilABAll^{X":;,;;-r,i I),')nu}

State Bank of India v. M/s. Santoshi Mata Auto Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

State Bank of India v. M/s. Santoshi Mata Auto Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ananda Ratna Rajakumar Bunga versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Ashok Kumar B versus Gic Housing Finance Limited

Mr D Surender Babu versus Repco Home Finance Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Sri. Dareddy Venu Gopal Reddy

M/S. Instruments Techniques Pvt. Lts., versus M/S. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Shri. Shakuntala Narender