Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Decca Surgicals Private Limited

DRT27 Sept 2024OA/271/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues totaling Rs. 44.57 lakhs, including interest, from M/s. Decca Surgicals (p) Limited and associated directors who failed to repay cash credit and term loans.

What did the court decide?

Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 44,57,428/- (reduced by Rs. 9.50 lakhs paid) with future interest; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Decca Surgicals Private Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 27fH DAY OF SEPTEMBER'2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.271 ot 2O2Z

¶4

Between:

¶5

State bank of India, Asset Recovery Management Branch, (SARB-2), 1-8-563/1, 1't ftoor, Opp Sandhya theatre, RTC X roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. TS. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Decca Surgicals (p) Limited, Represented by its directors Smt Sujatha Raj Decca & Decca Rajender Kumar, major, male & Female, plot no.48, Navodaya Industrial Area, Phase-V, IDA, Cherlapally, Hyderabad - 62.

¶9

Smt Sujatha Raj Decca, w/o Sri Decca Raj Kumar, major female, director of M/s. Decca Surgicals (P) Limited, R/o H.No.14-237/1,^pVN colony, Mirjalaguda, Malkajgiri,

¶10

3n:fli*::Hrxl;;mHyderabad - 500 047.

¶11

gg
Surgicals (p) Limited, i;' X
n/o-r.ruo.i+-zziii,-'pvr ti
Mirjatasuda, Markajsiri, t tl3.t'' 2 7 SEP 2fl0 T
Hyderabad - soo 047.' .i, .. Defenda nts
. s_$l
* t';mnP

¶12

(O A.No.27 7/20231

¶13

Counsel for the^parties: For the Applicant

¶14

For the Defendants

¶15

Sri P.V. Satyanarayana

¶16

Sri D.A. Premchand

¶17

ORDER

¶18

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.44,57,42gl_ (Rupees Forty Four Lakhs Fifty seven thousand Four hundred and Twenty Eight only) i.e.,

¶19

a) A sum of Rs.16,19,29I/- undet cash credit loan with future interest @ 8'650/o p.a with monthry rests from date of apprication tiil the date of realization;

¶20

b) A sum of Rs.28,38,137/- under FITL loan with future interest @ 11.15olo p.a with monthry rests from date of apprication tiil the date of realization;

¶21

and in default for sare of hypothecated property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶22

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendants No.2 and 3 are directors of defendant no.1 firm availed cash cred it loan and term loan limit of 'e6'zi* -"' Rs.25.00 lakhs on due repayment of ,.' €$ - i;"; 2l5EP-rlT'l---ment of loan cum hypothecation anO o'1i$ntel agreemenq G 08.10.2021. After Qa;lr,n}

¶23

(OA. No.27112023)

¶24

availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA and issued legal notice dated 24.08.2e23. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶25

counsel for defendants filed vakalath but failed to file written statement.

¶26

Sri B. Rama Krishna prasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.9. The Applicant bank filed part satisfaction memo stating that defendants paid a sum of Rs.9.5O Iakhs towards term loan account.

¶27

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶28

6' 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?

¶29

Counsel for defendants filed vakalath but failed to file WS. To substantiate the case AW.1, official of the "f^p/e** Applicant Bank was exa f.;r--'ff"^- nir-$, n t d oc u m e n ts -."it -'.r",a as Ex.A1 to A.9. In i.} "t^{Fl $PprryShol8 lihat the Appticant} ^;ti

¶30

(oA. No.271l2023)

¶31

Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶32

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are joinuy and severaily riabre to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.44,S7AZgl_ (Rupees Forty Four Lakhs Fifty Seven thousand Four hundred and Twenty Eight only) LESS A SUM OF RS.9,5O,OOO/_ pArD By DEFENDANTS;

¶33

a) A sum of Rs.16,19,291/- under cash credit loan with future interest @ 8.650lo p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶34

b) A sum of Rs.28,38,137/- under FITL loan with future interest @

¶35

11.15o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶36

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

¶37

The Applicant Bank is a against the person and properties of defe of the debt due.

¶38

The Applicant Bank

¶39

oA.
e{fi
E{w

¶40

lOA.No.27 t/20231

¶41

t2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶42

of receipt of order.

¶43

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶44

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶45

(Dictated to the P,A., transcrit by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day or sept, zoz]id

¶46

sd/(G. GOPiCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶47

'".^r-"."
ft"B
w"sj%:^
Reglrt!-t ^
@,w# ,illiiTi'Jiiiar^.r1.

State Bank of India v. M/S. Decca Surgicals Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Decca Surgicals 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

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Sri. Jawaharlal Gogoluthu

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Nitin Infra Projects

Manoj Kumar N versus Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

Canara Bank versus Smt . Bandameedhi Jyothi

State Bank of India versus Mr. Kothapalli Sai Karthik

State Bank of India versus Apex Aac Industries Represented by Its Proprietor Smt M Madhavi