Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Om Sree Venkatanameswara Prelam Private Limited

DRT12 Dec 2024OA/273/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's original application for recovery of dues. The Court held that the defendants had availed loans and failed to repay, and as their evidence was not cross-examined, the bank's documents remained unchallenged, establishing liability.

What did the court decide?

The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 1,44,39,892/- with interest; the bank is entitled to proceed against mortgaged properties and properties of defendants 2 to 6.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Om Sree… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 12rr{ DAy OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.273 ot 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Bus Terminal complex (Commuter Amenity Centre) Koti, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶7

Represented by its Chief Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Om SreeVenkatanameswara Prelam (P) Limited,

¶11

Represented by its Managing director Sri Nagaraj GoudKatagouni, major, Male, plot no.68, flat no.102, Rang Manor Apartment, Jayabharat Nagar, Nizampet road, Hyderabad - 72.

¶12

Also at Plot no.D-27,IDA,^phase-1, Road no.6, Jeedimetla, Quthbullapur Mandal, Hyderabad - 500 055.

¶13

Mr. Nagaraj GoudKatagouni, s/o Sri K.K. Goud, major, male,

¶14

director of M/s. Om SreeVenkatanameswar Prelanr (P) Limited, R/o D.1-55, Vengal Nagar, SR nagar, Hyderabad - 38.

¶15

-m
FE
i, k. I 2 oEc zut ru

¶16

Also at:

¶17

H.no.6-119, plot no,119, Sy.No.51, Road no.1 New Madhurapuri colony, Almasguda, Saroornagar, Hyderabad - 500 058.

¶18

(oA. No.273l2023)

¶19

Sri VenkatesuluAdoni, s/o Late Vasantharao, major, male, director of M/s. Om Sree VenkatanameswaraPrelam ( P) Ltd, R/o H.No.B-3 -224/ Lll3c, 1't floor, Madhuranagar, SR nagar, Hyderabad - 500 038. 4. Sri Ramesh Babu Kota, s/o K. Gopala Krishna Murthy, major, male, Director of M/s. Om SreeVenkatanameswara Prelam (P) Ltd, R/o flat no.102, Raaga Manohar Apartment, laya Bharat nagar, BSD Rishi Women Clg, Nizampet road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500 85. 5. SkriSurakanti Ganga Reddy, S/o Sri Linga Reddy, male, major, Director of M/s. Om SreeVenkataNameswaraPrelam (P) Limited, R/o H.No. 1-5 -lO8/7 /7 L, HMT Officers colony, Old Alwal, Tirumalgiri, Hyderabad - 500 010. 6. Ms. VidyullathaGuntaha, D/o Sri Gopala SettyNarhar, Female, major, R/o H.No.11-1-3/1, Bapunagar, Saroornagar, Hyderabad - 500 035. Defenda nts Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant Sri P.V. Satyanarayana For the Defendants No.1,2 & 4 Ms. P. Manasa Reddy Defendant No.3 1. The Applicant Bank tn",,o{"fiEelflR "* Defendants for recovery of a total su pees One Crore

¶20

(OA.No.273l2023 )

¶21

Forty Four Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Twoonly) i.e.,

¶22

a) A sum of Rs.1,33,90,247/- in respect of cash credit loan with interest @ 10.50% p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶23

b) A sum of Rs.10,49,645/- in respect of GEClaccount withinterest @ 10.30o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶24

and in default for sale of mortgaged properties and hypothecated assets as described in the schedule to OA.

¶25

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants No.2 is the managing partner of defendant no.1 firm and defendants 3 to 5 were directors of defendant no.1 firm along with defendant no.6 avaired cc roan of Rs.50.00 rakhs, term loan of Rs.1.00 crore and bank guarantee of Rs.25.00 rakhs respectively on 05.01.2015. Defendants no. 2 to 6 stood as guarantors and executed guarantee agreement. The defendants executed Agreement of loan cum hypothecation, guarantee agreement dated 05.01.2015 in favour of Applicant bank. Defendants 2 & 4 deposited the tifle deeds relating'to mortgaged properties bearingRegd Sale 07 dated 07.02.2007 a nd Resd. sa re deed .". r, yffiig'1;".,ff;q

¶26

It is submitted oy/ffi T0,,,'.nil:Zm.-^{,tt the Defendants} have avaired the said "". ,rJ,3"ltl.Tl";iT" ;"";;;-;r"

¶27

¶28

(oA. N0.273l2023)

¶29

repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on27.06.2023and issued demand notice dated 2g.06.2023. Inspite of demands made by Appricant the defendants have not regurarized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is ofRs'1,44,39,892/- (Rupees one crore Forty Four Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Two only) with interest @ 10.Soo/op.a and @ 10.30olo p.a respectively with monthly rests from date of appllcation till the date of realization. Hence the oA.

¶30

2' Defendant No.3 remained exparte. The Defendants No.1,2& 4 fired written statement and denied the averments made in oA. It is denied about the hypothecation movables and creation of mortgage of immovable properties in favour of applicant bank. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶31

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Sri K. GovindRaju, Manager as AW.1 and through her marked 36 documents as Ex.Ail@(qs against this, the defendants did not choose,a,m;; behalf in support of their contentions #dErso oio i6t choose examine the AW.1 to controvert nirtt,ct,,"r 1r2.0"*JP, of repeated adjo u rn m ents, th e defe nd u n tr.,+i,ld8.Xo f i f e eras{ dav it, hence K!;ir'#Tg

¶32

(oA.No.273l2023)

¶33

the right of filing Defendant Evidence Affidavit was crosed on t2.Lt.2024.

¶34

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶35

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶36

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

¶37

ii) To what relief ?

¶38

Point No,i):

¶39

As per the documents fired by the Appricant Bank and arso as per the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement, it is very clear that the defendants have availed loan from the Applicant Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defendants are clearly mentioned in the statement of account filed by Applicant Bank. The defendants have not praced any materiar documents to show their bonafides for establishing that they have not created mortgage of schedule properties.

¶40

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants.

¶41

The defendants have not cag@q!-to give evidence to substantiate that their,,zzL[B**ff B,*.,,",,,o,"0,. Lne u o the o A an d no supsu p oftirip-ilocuments portil|to.rr"rBr,,"o file-d ,f o r i ffiblishing that they have not ,ounun"o ii,u, A3J"ES,YI ."o+1L,. ;.": ,,.; circumsta nces, the evide € ,of"atW.1 co recitals Ex.A.1 to .':. .'tz Hvg' "

¶42

(oA. No.273l2023)

¶43

A,23 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants are liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶44

Point No.ii)

¶45

In the result, the present original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶46

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,44,3g,gg?-/_ (Rupees One Crore Forty Four Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Two only) i.e.,

¶47

a) A sum of Rs.1,33,90,247/_ in respect of cash credit loan with interest @ 10.50o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶48

b) A sum of Rs.L0,49,645/- in respect of GEclaccount withinterest @ 10.30olo p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of rea lization;

¶49

B. The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged schedule to

¶50

:;12oEczut i

¶51

(oA.No.273/2023)

¶52

9' The Appricant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 6 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶53

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

¶54

The Applicant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶55

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶56

Communicate a copy of the order to the pa rties concerned.

¶57

(Dictated to the p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open

¶58

court on this the 12th day of Dec, 2024)

¶59

sd/-

¶60

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶61

DPT.I, HYDERABAO.

State Bank of India v. M/S. Om Sree Venkatanameswara Prelam Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Om Sree Venkatanameswara Prelam Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Narsimha Poultry Farm and Feed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mr. Mallu Ramchandra Reddy

The South Indian Bank Ltd. versus Mr. J. Gopal Rao

Indian Overseas Bank versus Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (Pacs)

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Mantena Laboratories Ltd.

Mr Arepula Yadagiri versus Bank of Baroda