Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Agro Food Chronicles Pvt. Ltd.

DRT22 Apr 2024OA/275/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA No. 275 of 2023, State Bank of India sought recovery of approximately Rs. 1.06 Crore against Agro Food Chronicles and guarantor defendants for outstanding loan facilities. The tribunal held the defendants absent and examined a bank officer who substantiated the claim with documents, subsequently allowing the applicant's recovery request.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 1,06,33,676/- with interest at 9.65% p.a. from date of OA; order for sale of hypothecated movables; authority to proceed against property of defendant No.1 firm and assets of defendant

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL'2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

OA.No.275 OF 2023

Between:

State Bank of India,

Stressed Asset Recovery Branch-II(ARMB) 1-8-563/1, RTC cross roads, Opp Sandhya Threate, 1tt floor, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 500 020. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶8

Applicant

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

M/s. Agro Food Chronicles Pvt ltd, Represented by its Director, Regd office : Sy.No.31, 40/P, 47/P,42, Bungalow No.3B5, phase III,

¶11

Cherlapally, Hyderabad - 500 051.

¶12

Sri B. Kiran Kumar,

¶13

s/o Sri B. Kantha Rao, aged 41 years, male, sy.No.3l, 40/P, 4tlP, 42, Bungalow No.3B5, phase III,

¶14

Cherlapally, Hyderabad - 500 051.

¶15

Also at:

¶16

l-15-2/23, CB colony,

¶17

Near RB Guest house,

¶18

Vizianagaram, A.P - 535 003.

¶19

Smt K. Nirmala,

¶20

w/o V. Bhogiraju, aged 64 yrs, aged 64 years, female, sy.No.31, 40/P, 4l/P, 42, Bungalow No.385, phase III, Cherlapally, Hyderabad - 500

¶21

(OA.No.275 of 2023)

¶22

Also at

¶23

1-5-50/302, Vivekananda nagar, Habsiguda, Secunderabad- 500 007.

¶24

Defendants

¶25

Counsel for the Parties:

¶26

For the Applicant

¶27

For the Defendants

¶28

Sri C. Prabhakar Expa rte

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,06,33,676l- (Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs Thirty three thousand Six hundred and Seventy Six only) i.e. (Rs.72,t2,579l- + Rs.16,21,177/- + Rs.17,99,920/-) with further interest @ 9.650lo p.a with monthly rests from the date of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶31

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is the^principal borrower and defendants no.2 & 3 stood as guarantors availed cash credit loan of Rs.15.00 lakhs and term loan of Rs.79.00 lakhs totaling a sum of Rs.94.00 lakhs vide letter of 02.02.2027. To secure the due repayment of , the defendants 2 7 3 executed ag reem e nt of dated 02.02.2021.

¶32

(OA.No.275 of 2023)

¶33

Defendants 2 & 3 jointly executed guarantee agreement dt.02.02.2021. The applicant bank renewed the existing loans and sanctioned additional loan as detailed below vide letter of a rra ngement dt. t5.12.2021.

¶34

S.No.	Facilitv	Limit(Rs.in crores)
1.	Cashcredit	0.15
2.	Termloan	0.78
3.	GECL1.0Exten	0.15
	Total	1.08

¶35

To secure the due repayment of loan facilities, defendants no.2 & 3 executed supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 15.12.202t. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPAand issued legal notice dated 13.09.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶36

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 18.03.2024.

¶37

Sri Ch. Raghavender Rao, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.17.

¶38

Heard the Ld.

¶39

l)'

¶40

(OA.No.275 of 2023)

¶41

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?

¶42

Defendants called absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.17. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant 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.

¶43

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

¶44

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.1,O6,3g,676l- (Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs Thirty three thousand Six hundred and Seventy Six only) i.e. (Rs.72,L2,579/- + Rs.16,2t,t77/_ + Rs.17,99,920/-) with further interest @ 9.650lo p.a from the date of OA till the date of realization.

¶45

The Applicant bank is ainst the hypothecated mova bles as descri OA rds realization of the debt due.

¶46

(OA.No.275 of 2023)

¶47

11, The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶51

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶52

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22"d day of Aptil'2024)

¶53

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶54

c'*"u'!fitXRUE CDPYA
8fiT..', HYT'EfiABIN,

State Bank of India v. M/S. Agro Food Chronicles Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Agro Food Chronicles Pvt. Ltd.

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Srinivasa Packaging Industries

State Bank of India versus Sri. Motor Deepak Kumar

State Bank of India versus Pps Hospitality Services

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S.Shanmukha Traders

Bank of India versus M/S. Be Real Bevarages

M S Shiva Sai Jayalakshmi Tyres versus Punjab National Bank