Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Vinayaka Enterprises

DRT2 Apr 2024OA/294/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application by State Bank of India against three defendant individuals for recovery of Rs. 1.11 crore loan amount along with future interest and costs based on evidence provided by the bank's manager and documents exhibited during the ex parte hearing.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 1,11,62,738/- plus interest at 17.25% p.a.; entitlement to proceed against hypothecated/mortgaged assets and properties for realization of debt.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sri Vinayaka Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL' 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.294 OF 2OZ3

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s, Sri Vinayaka Enterprises, Represented by its^proprietor, Sri SnehithrajKundarapu, H.No.2-3-2 14160, plot no.58, Sy. No.s L70,lll,LL2, Satyanagar, Bhagayat village, Uppalmandal, MedchalMalkajgiridist - 500 039.

¶9

Sri SnehithrajKundarapu, s/o Kundarapu Raja Chari, male, R/o H.No.2-3-676 /3/ tsZ, lalithanagar, Road no.9, green lands Dhaba, oppNagole, Hyderabad - 500 068.

¶10

3, Sri Kundarapu Raja Chari, s/o Sri K. Sarvaiah, aged 55 years, male, R/o H.No.2-3-676 /3/ L52, lalithanagar, Road no.9, green lands Dhaba, oppNagole, Hyderabad - 500 068.

¶11

ffi:
,: . li:..s
/ 6\ k:i
L., q:'. i,
? [?H
=(&i-,$

¶12

(oA.No.294 of 2023)

¶13

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant

For the Defendants

Sri C. Prabhakar

Exparte

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.L,LL,62t738/- (Rupees One Crore Eleven Lakhs Sixty Two thousand Seven hundred and Thirty Eight only) i.e., (a sum of Rs.78,92,425/- + Rs.32,70,313/-) with further interest @ L7.25o/o p.awith monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realizationand in default for sale of movable assets and mortgaged property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Sri Vinayaka Enterprises, defendant no.2 is proprietor of defendant no.1 and defendants 2 & 3 stood as guarantors availed cash credit limit of Rs.100.00 lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 3t.t2.2020. To secure due repayment of cash credit loan of Rs.100 lakhs, defendant no.2 being proprietor of defendant no.1 executed agreement of loan cum hy_ppthecation dated 31.t2.2020. Defendant -l' -.:,';.. i^{.- :^'---.} no.1 hypothecated alf,4p'tiiilvq-ble- aqSe.ts more fully described in i'. i:' :- ;ili , schedule I to OA. .,ijDefendant'no.g crea'tbOiequitable mortgage on ,i fl^rr;::: ;.,ri 3LL2.20202 by wqy.of dbposlf br'sdte oeel t"to.zO:ol2oo7 dated \

¶20

.! i. .._ ,.,-.fd'.!'.+,.r. .. =-r^{--_', t :,..tv} ,t,r<sup>* r.t \i' :-^-:/"" ::" .."ri:.

¶21

(OA.No.294 of 2023)

¶22

t9.12.2007 in respect of schedule-II mentioned property. The cash credit loan was renewed with Rs.25.00 lakhs totaling to Rs.125.00 lakhs vide arrangement letter dated 11.05.2021. On request of defendants 1 to 3, the applicant bank revis3ed the limits of cash credit Rs.30.00 lakhs and term loan of Rs.7O.O0 lakhs on 17.t2.2022 and executed supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation. 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 NpA and issued legal notice dated 29.09.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶23

Defendant No.s 1 to 3 cailed absent and set exparte on 13.03.2024.

¶24

sri P. Prabhakar, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.21.

¶25

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶26

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made i as

prayed for?

€a
02$;:ml

(OA.No.294 of 2023)

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.21. 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.

¶31

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

¶32

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of ofRs.1,11,62,738 1- (Rupees One Crore Eleven Lakhs Sixty Two thousand Seven hundred and Thirty Eight only) i.e., (a sum of Rs.78,92,425/- + Rs.32,70,3L31-) with further interest @ 17.25o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization.

¶33

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated assets and mortgaged immovable property as described in schedules "I &II" to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶34

The Applicant Bank is also e against the person and properties of defenda nts es of defendant no.1 firm towards realizati he ue. 0

¶35

(OA.No.294 of 2023)

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶39

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶40

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day ot Aptil'2024)

¶41

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶42

6%"N
tp g$ '^
; ozAPB,ozo;
,t

¶43

):fmu,#:;ffi;:'i:,*

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Vinayaka Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Vinayaka Enterprises

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

Similar cases

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mrs. Anthony Hariate Margaret

State Bank of India versus S.U. Hygiene Products

State Bank of India versus Sri Gopala Krishna Devulapalli

State Bank of India versus M/S. Kr Enterprises

A Raghavendra versus Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

Indian Bank versus M/S. Yashwanth Enterprises