Allowed

State Bank of India v. Shree Ridhi Dhillod Foods Pvt. Ltd.

DRT21 Nov 2024OA/281/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the State Bank of India for recovery of Rs.23,39,920 with interest against the borrower company and its directors. The bank's claim was established through primary witness deposition and documents, leading to an order for joint and several liability and rights against hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to jointly and severally pay Rs.23,39,920 with interest at 12.40% p.a. Applicant entitled to proceed against hypothecated assets and properties of defendants for debt realization an

State Bank of India versus Shree Ridhi Dhillod Foods Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 21STDAY OF NOVEMBER' 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER OA.No.281 of 2OZg

¶3

Between:

¶4

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuier Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Rep by its authorized officer

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Shree Ridhi Dhillod Foods pvt Ltd, Flat no.109, block p, Attapur, Hima Sai Srinidhim Apartments, Hyderguda, Hyderabad - 500 048.

¶8

Mrs Sunitha Bidlan, w/o Gyaneshwar Dhillod, aged about 39 years, occ: business, female, R/o n.No.7- t-396/D, B.K. Guda, SR Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 038

¶9

Also at:

¶10

Plot no.5, Jai Bharat nagar, Near Panchamitki Hanuman Temple, RCI road, Jilleliguda Gram Panchayat, Saroornagar, Meerpet, Telangana - 500 097.

¶11

Smt Saritha Bidlan, W/o T. Anand, aged about 43 yrs Occ: business, female, R/o H.No.7-1-396/D, B.K. Guda, SR Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 038

¶12

ffi
i; I -r, ? 1 N0\l 202[ :.
.: " -, .I
W.'W

¶13

(OA.No,281/2023)

¶14

Also at:

¶15

#11-19-90, Bhagath singh nagar, LB nagar, Saroornagar, TS- 35.

¶16

Defendants

¶17

Counsel for the Parties:

¶18

For the Applicant

¶19

For the Defendants

¶20

Smt Tarangini Pisipati

¶21

D. Madhu Latha

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.23,39,920/_ (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty only) with interest @ t2.4Oo/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated assets as described in the schedule to OA.

¶24

As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant No.l is a company and defendants 2 and 3 are its directors availed cc roan of Rs.20.00 rakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 01.10.2021. The defendants executed agreement of loan cum hy tee agreement and created hypothecation of ,'sgoi'ks, equipment and OA. After 2nltffiysffioutelt availing the loan facility, the def_qndants failed-$od-go...tli/rply the terms of ..:..^ rr:1.,J sa nction, hence the app :. Oarii< was constiained to classify the S.UPT NY.PT

¶25

¶26

(oA.No.281/2023)

¶27

account as NPA on 31.03.2023 and issued recall notice dated L6.09.2023, Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶28

Ms. D. Madhu Latha filed vakalath for defendants but failed to file Written statement.

¶29

Sri P. Sandeep, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.7.

¶30

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶31

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?

¶32

Counsel for defendants filed vakalath but not filed WS. 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.7. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their .gde^{in the OA against the} Defendants and hence entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future

¶33

}lnu zur i] '. 1 *''{'ti--T-7

¶34

(oA.N0.28U2023)

¶35

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

¶36

The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.23,39,92Ol- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty only) with interest @ I2.40o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶37

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated assets as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶38

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.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶42

Communicate a copy of th6 order to the parties concerned. (Dictated by iier, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court^q0 2024)

¶43

.i.
u sd/-
* (G. GOPTCHAND)
TRUE GOPY PREsTDTNG oFFrcER
rilr nt/
// / t --t-____-r.-l t -
/(' (,/"'-' tb/r,/1-1-t,
/4 oJ"r.R"qEI:,'.,( ,k )-

¶44

DRT.I , IIYDERA:'' ' "T'

State Bank of India v. Shree Ridhi Dhillod Foods Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Shree Ridhi Dhillod Foods 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

Similar cases

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

State Bank of India versus M/s. Dw Upvc Windows

State Bank of India versus M/S. Matha Filling Station

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Circuit Computer Services

Aster Private Limited versus Idbi Bank

Aster Private Limited versus Idbi Bank