Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Crescent Jewellers

DRT2 Feb 2024OA/307/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA No. 307/2023, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's claim for recovery of Rs. 48,64,797 and interest against the respondents, who defaulted on a cash credit facility. The debut of the bank was supported by an officer's evidence and documents; the respondents were absent, and the tribunal granted permission to proceed against hypothecated movables and defendant properties.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay Rs. 48,64,797 with interest; authorizing recovery from hypothecated movables and properties of respondents; issuing recovery certificate.

State Bank of India versus M/S Crescent Jewellers — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY'2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No,3O7 ol 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, SARB-I, TSRTC Bm terminal, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 001 Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Crescent Jewellers,

¶10

Represented by its partners Khaja Sa la uddin&MdSadeqSirajudd in,

¶11

Situated at flat no.501, 5th floor, My Splender complex, Main block (MCH No.3-5 -807 / t/ C, Hyderguda, Hyderabad - 500 029.

¶12

Mr. KhajaSalauddin, s/o KhajaMohiuddin, partners of

¶13

M/s. Crescent Jewellers, aged About 41 years, male, occ: business, R/o flat no.101, My Splendor Residency, Main block, (MCH No.3-5 -807 / L/C & D,

¶14

Hyderguda, Hyderabad - 5OO 029.

¶15

Sri Md Sad EQ Sirajuddin, s/o Hafeezuddin, partners of

¶16

M/s. Crescent Jewellers, Aged about 43, :business, R/o H.No.3-. Hyderaba{/ G:

¶17

Defendants

¶18

Counsel For the For the

¶19

Sri Arun Kumar Satyavolu Exparte

¶20

(oA. No.307/2023)

¶21

ORDER

¶22

1' The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.4',,- ,4,797l_ (Rupees Forty Eight Lakhs Sixty four thousand Seven hundred and Eighty Seven only) with further interest @ 12.65% p.awith monthly rests from 01.11.2023 tiil the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged property as described in the schedure to oA and in defaurt for sale of hypothecated stocks as described in the schedule to OA.

¶23

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a partnership firm in the name of M/s. Crescent Jewellers dealing in manufacturing and wholesale of hallmarked jewerery avaired cash credit of Rs.45 rakhs vide sanction dated 07.06.2022. Defendants 2 & 3 are partners of defendant no.1 firm and executed severar roan documents agreeing to the terms and conditions of Appricant bank. Defendants 1 to 3 arso executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation in favour of Applicant bank and created hypothecation on stocks and book debts as mentioned in the schedule to OA. After availing the loan facilities, the defendants failed to .o.pjy-.Sgms of sanction, hence the appticant bank was constrai nt as NPA on 29.05.2023 and issued ou^u,?t'&:r r&;r: r rruLrce owo J1.1q2023. Inspite of several requests and ^ti B.^{, 2 F,j| M4 j]i} \,',i ;,$ Wn+ngWu'

¶24

(oA.No.307/2023)

¶25

demands, the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶26

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 16.01.2024.

¶27

Shri A. G. Satyaprasad, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW,1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are

¶28

marked as Ex.A.1 to A.B.

¶29

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶30

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶31

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶32

7 ' Defendants cailed absent and set exparte. To substantiate the case of the Appricant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A,g. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the

¶33

Applicant Bank is ver the claim made in the OA with future in r) '&

¶34

B. iig^{D) r:o y|r_n} In the resuttffi present OA ii' with costs, as under:

¶35

(oA. No.307/2023)

¶36

9' The Defendants are joinry and severary riabre to pay to the Appricant Bank a total sum of Rs.48,64 1g7/_ (Rupees Forty Eight Lakhs Sixty four thousand Seven hundred and Eighty Seven only) with further interest @ 12.65olo p.afrom 01.11.2023 till realization.

¶37

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated

¶38

movables as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of

¶39

the debt due.

¶40

11' the Appricant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶44

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶45

:311":",,,1?,.ff"rj*.,^{j:"r"ff,!t#j.!ff.,.o..".,"0,sienedand pronounced by me in theopen}

¶46

0 2 rEB 2[2{

¶47

sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER

¶48

TRL!E GOPT'
- (rf*:)dnvf
{1,.e4""--*

¶49

Assl. Regrsfrar oRl'. t, t;1,D E R,4, R,4 D.

State Bank of India v. M/S Crescent Jewellers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Crescent Jewellers

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

Indian Bank versus M/S. Sri Sai Logistics

State Bank of India versus M/S Pj Agro Tech Limited

State Bank of India versus Shri Gugloth Rajesh Naik

Tummala Anitha versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Indian Bank versus Mrs. N. Visalakshi

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Peddi Pavani