Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Ramakrishna Electronics and Home Appliances

DRT29 Aug 2024OA/301/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Applicant Bank's Original Application for recovery of dues totaling Rs.49,09,912/- principal and interest. The court held that the bank's evidence was accepted as unchallenged since the defendants failed to file evidence and cross-examine the bank's witness, rendering the defendants liable for the debt.

What did the court decide?

Total sum of Rs.49,09,912/- with interest; joint and several liability declared; instruction to issue Recovery Certificate.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs THE 29rH DAy oF AUGUST, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.3O1 ot 2022

¶4

Between:

¶5

State Bank of India, Stre-ssed Assets Recovery Branch, 2"" tloor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. Represented by its chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Sri Sri Ramakrishna Electronics & Home Appliances, represented by its Proprietor Sri Garlapati V. Krishna Salthosh, aged 37 years,, male, H.No.9-1-43, Kaman bazir, Khammam Town, Khammam district _ 207 OO1

¶9

Sri GarlapatiVenkata Krishna Santhosh, S/o Sri Nageswara Rao, aged 37 years, male, H-No.9-1-43, Kaman Bazar, Khammam town, Khammam dist - 207 OO1.

¶10

3.
Sri GarlapatiNageswara Rao,
S/o Sri Venkateswarlu,
Aged 63 years, male,
H-No.9-1-43, Kaman bazar,
Khammam town, Khammam
/s,- :ffi
District - 207 }OL. IIF :s *
4. SmtGarlapati Lakshmi, 12 g ru[ ,*t".f
w/o Sri Nageswara Rao, ;
'R ru#

¶11

(OA.No.301 of 2022)

¶12

aged 62 years, female, H.No.9-1-43, Kaman Bazar, Khammam town, Khammam dist - 207 OO1.

¶13

Sri GarlapatiVenuVenkatesh, s/o Sri Nageswara Rao, aged 36 years, male, H.No.9-1-43, Kaman Bazar, Khammam town, Khammam dist - 207 001, Defendants

¶14

Counsel for the Parties:

¶15

For the Applicantthe ApplicantApplicant

¶16

For the Applicantthe ApplicantApplicant Sri C. Prabhakar For the Defendants Sri R. Rajendra Prasad

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.49,O9,912l- (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Nine thousand Nine Hundred and Twetveonly) i.e.,

¶19

a) A sum of Rs.49,04,417/- under Loan account No.624g4644724 with further interest @ 16.15olo p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶20

b) A sum of Rs.5,495/- under loan account no.39430597155 with further interest @ 11.30o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date

¶21

and in default for es as described in :..-... the schedule "I & If- to OA. * 2 I lUn 421

¶22

(OA.No.301 of 2022)

¶23

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants No,1 is a proprietary concern / principal borrower and defendants 2 to 5 are mortgagors as well as guarantors. The defendants 1 to 5 avaired cash credit rimit of Rs.50.00 lakhs for running business of defendant no.1 through retter of arrangement dated 16.12.2016. To secure due repayment of cash credit (Hypothecation) limit, the defendant no.1 executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 16.t2.2016, The applicant bank renewed the cash credit rimit to Rs.50.00 rakhs and sanctioned term loan of Rs.35.00 lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 05.11.2018. To secure due repayment of roan the defendant no,l executed supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 23.06.2020. Defendants 3 to 5 joinfly executed guarantee agreement dated 23.06.2020 and defendants 2 to 5 created equitable mortgage on 06.10.2016 by way of deposit of sale deed no.10335/2016 in respect of schedule I property and sale deed no.10336/2016 in respect of schedule property _ II. Defendants No.2 to 5 extended the mortgage to cover loan facilities sanctioned to defendant no.1 and confirmed the same by way of execution of retter of confirmation for extension of mortgage dated 16.03.2017.

¶24

It is sub plicant bank that the Defendants 4: tuve have a vatteoilf.Xr vaitediffXrta'idr8.tan'f5e{hs saidi,:lpan 8ifddilBes and fai tl ed to keep up the ,i, ,i;! qi !i i' repayment fFhedule, as suchthe akfiunt was classified as NpA and irrruo rusur{gg,."l;1"1$rr7.$*.gI.$ rn.pit" or demands made by ftflr.-,,.^,".e#7"

¶25

(OA.No.301 of 2022)

¶26

Applicant the defendants have not regurarized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The totar craim of Appllcant against defendants is of Rs.49 ;og,gt2/_ (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Nine thousand Nine Hundred and Twelve only) with future interest @ 16.15% p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶27

2' The Defendants No.1 to 5 fired written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is submitted that due to covid 19 pandemic, arr business ail over the country faced hardships and the business was running row and during that troubres the Appricant bank decrared the account as NpA. It is arso contended that inspite of suffering losses, the defendants paid the roan instailments regurarry. It is further submitted that the mistake in giving the correspondence address of M/s. GNR products India as the risk address arso is that of the Appricant bank and that the Appricant took signatures on brank documents and further contended that Applicant bank regularly audited the stock at godown where the fire accident took place. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶28

The Applica its claim, filed evidence affidavit

¶29

duly Prasad, Manager as AW.1 and thror as Ex.A.1 to A.23. As against this, to adduce any evidence on their

¶30

(oA.No.301 of 2022)

¶31

behalf in support of their contentions and arso did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert his Chief Evidence. Inspite of repeated adjournments, the defendants failed to file evidence Affidavit, hence the right of firing Defendant Evidence Affidavit was closed on 05.12.2023.

¶32

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶33

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶34

i) whether the Appricant Bank has proved its craim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶35

ii) To what relief ?

¶36

Point No.i):

¶37

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 crear that the defendants have avaired roan from the Appricant Bank, but failed to repay the amount. All the amounts paid by the defendants are crearry mentioned in the statement of account fired by Appllcant Bank. The defendants have not placed any material documents to show their bonafides for establishing that they paid substantial a

¶38

by the counsel for defendants. $;&.. evidence to rhe defendaoo Tuf ppgt 44ru ;i substantiate tliat !heir liability is mentioned in

¶39

(OA.No.301 of 2022)

¶40

the OA and no supporting documents filed for establishing that they have not created the mortgage. Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupred with recitars Ex.A.1 to A.23 stood uncha[enged and unrebutted. The Appricant bank crearry estabrished that the defendant is liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶41

Point No.ii)

¶42

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

¶43

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.49,09,9L2/_ (Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Nine thousand Nine Hundred and Twelve only) i.e.,

¶44

a) A sum of Rs.49,04,4L7/- under Loan account No.62494644724 with further interest @ 16.150/o p.a from date of firing of oA tiil the date of realization;

¶45

b) A sum of Rs.5,495l- under loan account no.39430597155 with further interest @ 11.30o/o p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶46

B. the mortgaged properties to OA towards realization 2 I AIJS 2p.l ..)

¶47

(OA.No.301 of 2022)

¶48

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 to 5 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶52

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶53

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of Aug'2024)

¶54

sd/_

¶55

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶56

er.!E^cojt-. .Q^n:K* ,!'{'frI;;t;t"

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Ramakrishna Electronics and Home Appliances

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. Sri Ramakrishna Electronics and Home Appliances

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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sherton Bakers and Sweets (Borrower)

Rayaneni Kumaraswamy versus City Union Bank Limited

Adepu Venkateshwarlu versus City Union Bank Limited

Rbl Bank Ltd. versus Mrs. Padma Mudigonda

State Bank of India versus Sri Pagadala Surender

Punjab National Bank versus Sri. K. Ramakrishnareddy