Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Mourya Automotives

DRT23 Sept 2024OA/296/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's Originator Application for recovery of loan dues aggregating Rs. 43.53 lakhs with interest from the defendants, who were certified as liars for their admitted and proved defaults.

What did the court decide?

Order for recovery of total sum of Rs. 43,53,768.31 with future interest @ 11.05% and 9.40% p.a., with mandate to pass Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus M/S. Mourya Automotives — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER,2024

¶2

PRESENT: sRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶3

OA.No.296 OF 2O2Z

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2"" floor, TS RTC Bus terminal complex, (Comm.uter Amenity Centre), Koti, Hyderabad, Telangana State

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s.MouryaAutomotives, [90-r,91gnteO^{by its Managing parrner,} Sri MiddeShiva prasad, m1:j., 6-37, Main road, Srinivaspuiam Village, Wanaparthy _ 509 103.

¶9

Sri Midde Shiva prasad, S/o Sri M. Balaswamy, major, R/o H.No.2-9514, Korukonia Village, Bijanapallymandal, Nagarkurnooldist _ 509 203.

¶10

Sri Vepuri Suresh, s/o Sri V. VenkataRamana, major, male, R/o H.No.1_90, Sainagar colony, Achampet, Mahaboobnagardist _ 509 375.

¶11

Counsel for the parties:

¶12

For the Applicant

¶13

For the Defendants 1 & 2

¶14

Defendant no.3

¶15

2 3 SEP 474
da nts
Sri
anarayana
Sri Ranadhir Singh

Sri N.S. Arjun Kumar

(oA.No.2e6/20221

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.43,53,76g.31ps (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Fifty three Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty eight and paise Thirty one only) i.e.,

¶20

a) A sum of Rs.36,27,767.31ps for E_DFS (CC) limit with interest @ 11.05% p.awith monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization;

¶21

b) A sum of Rs.7,26,00 1/- for GECL loan limit with interest @ 9.40% p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of rea lization;

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants No.2 and 3 are partners ofdefendant no.1 firm who availed E-DFS loan facility of Rs.50.00 lakhs and bank guarantee of Rs.20.00 lakhs respectively on 28.03.2019 and defendants 2 & 3 stood as guarantors for due repayment of outstanding riabirity. Defendants 1 to 3 executed necessary security loan documents i.€., agreement of loan cum hypothecation, guarantee agreement dated 28.03.2019. Subsequently the E_DFS loan limit of Rs.50.00 lakhs availed additional loan limit of Rs.9.00 lakhs on ted supplemental agreement of loan cumj,hffotheca and ntee agreement dated 11.06.2020 in ravoijr$r thA lp$EBuep["",:

¶23

Ri*',,*u.# 3rt;i1E

¶24

(oA.No.296/20221

¶25

It is submitted by the Appricant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA. Inspite of demands made by Appricant the defendants have not regularized ihe account, and the appricant bank issued regar notice dated 05.09.2022 but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same' The totar craim of Appricant against defendants isof Rs.43,53,768.31ps (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Fifty three Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty eight and paise Thirty one only) with future interest @ 11.05o/o p.a and Rs.9.40% p.a with monthly rests from date of application till realization. Hence the oA.

¶26

2' The Defendants No.1 and 2 fired written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It was agreed that defendants availed loan of Rs.50.00 lakhs, bank guarantee of Rs.20.00 lakhs and additional loan of Rs'g.00 rakhs.It is contended that the defendants were regurar in paying the insta[ments andcontended that the Appricant bank did not follow the RBI guidelines while classifying the account as NPA. It is further submitted that defendants repaid a sum of Rs.18.00 lakhs. Hence pray examinedhimself as D-tf'4r. ,,+ written statement filed 5y the ry::,,::::T:::'r: r,^.t Z ,i -

¶27

loA.No.296/2022)

¶28

3, I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶29

Now, the points that arise for consideration are: i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in

¶30

OA against the defendants ?

¶31

ii) To what relief ?

¶32

Point No.i):

¶33

Sri P. MadhavRao, Manager/ AW.1 who was examined on behalf of

¶34

the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defenctants.

¶35

Exhibits A.1 to A.1O exhibited by the Applicant bank clearly establish

¶36

the liability of the defendants.

¶37

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though defendant No'2 examined himserf as DW.1, his evidence is in noway herpfur to him' The defendants No.1& 2 having taken the prea that the applicant bank did not follow the RBI guidelines and that the present oA was barred by rimitation, faired to prace any substantiar proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents exhibited by the bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendants in the normar course or transaction. The defendants No.1& contended that particulars made in the OA per the statement of accounts, the the OA claim. fTrp"?rB'r"^tl Considering all the that the defense

¶38

(oA.No.296/2oz2l

¶39

taken by the defendants No.1 and 2 is not tenable. Hence the applicant bank is entiUed to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶40

Point No.ii)

¶41

7' In the resurt, the present originar apprication is arowed with costs as u nder:

¶42

The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.43,53,76g,31ps (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Fifty three Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty eight and paise Thirty one only) i.e.,

¶43

a) A sum of Rs.36,27,767.31ps for E-DFS (cc) rimit with interest @ 11.05% p.afrom date of application till the date of realization;

¶44

b) A sum of Rs.7,26,001/_ for GECL loan limit with interest @ 9.400/o p.afrom date of apprication tiil the date of rearization;

¶45

B. The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendan perties of defendant no.1 firm towards reali ;.:ffi,,; * The Applicant Bank is ,3 tl.,JEtJ!78r tn

¶46

(oA.No.296/z1z2l

¶47

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

¶48

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶49

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶50

(Dictated to the p'A" transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23d day of Sept, 2024)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

TRUE COPY
l^,"(l**,r?
/ o#ii.",ii"iii'dao>jf 6f ua .

State Bank of India v. M/S. Mourya Automotives

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Mourya Automotives

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

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Zenith Import and Export

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mrs. Munigala Indira

T Subba Reddy versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/S. Shresht Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus New Amma Hospitals

Sri Mohan Kumar Chinnaswamy versus Hdfc Bank