Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ms Sai Samarth Traders thro it Prop Shripad Vijaykumar Kapre

DRT17 Apr 2024OA/334/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed State Bank of India's application for recovery of outstanding loan dues totaling 73.97 lakhs from the proprietors, trading firm, and guarantors, and authorized enforcement against mortgaged and other properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay jointly or severally sum of Rs. 73,97,587/- and future interest @ 8% p.a. entitling the bank to proceed against mortgaged and personal properties.

State Bank of India versus Ms Sai Samarth Traders… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 14/06/2022 Registered on: 17/08/2022 Decided on: 17/04/2024 Duration: Y. M. D. 1 – 10 - 13

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, at Aurangabad

¶3

Original Application No. 334 of 2022

¶4

State Bank of India

¶5

a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1995 having its local Head Office at Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai and one of its Branch at SME Branch at Shrirampur through one of its Officer i.e. branch Manager Shri Samar s/o Ramesh Dongre, age 38 years occup. service as Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch at SME, Shrirampur and having authority to file the application which includes the authority to sign and verify the application.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1 M/s. Sai Samarth Traders through its Proprietor Shri Shripad Vijaykumar Kapre R/o Survey No. 134, Shirdi Taluka Rahuri Dist. Ahmednagar Pin – 413715 Mob. No. 9423135800

¶9

2 Mr Prabhakar Govindrao Kote R/o 1404, Shirdi Tal. Rahata Dist. Ahmednagar–413715 Mob. No. 9423135800

¶10

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 334/2022)

¶11

Page 1 of 8

¶12

3 Mr Mukund Trimbak Kapre R/o Nandurkhi Road, Ganeshwadi, Govind Nagar, Nogoj, Shirdi Tal. Rahata Dist. Ahmednagar - Mob. No. 9423135800

¶13

…Defendants

¶14

Appearance :

¶15

For Applicant-bank : Mr. Arun V. Rakh, Adv. For Defendants Mr Sumant S. Kulkarni, Adv.

¶16

Shri Vimal Gupta Presiding Officer

¶17

Pronounced on: 17^th April 2024

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The applicant-bank has filed the present Original

¶20

Application against defendants No.1 to 3 for recovery of sum of

¶21

Rs. 73,97,587/- (Rs. seventy three lakhs ninety seven thousand

¶22

five hundred eighty seven only) towards outstanding of loan amounts availed by them, together with future interest @ 14.74% p.a. for cash credit loan facility of Rs. 6,94,558/-, @ 12.30% p.a.

¶23

for Term Loan amount of Rs. 62,03,181/- and @6.95% p.a. for

¶24

FITL loan amount of Rs. 4,99,828/- (applicant seems to have

¶25

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 334/2022)

¶26

Page 2 of 8

¶27

shown wrongly the figure “Rs. 3,99,848/-“ in view of amounts shown in table clause ‘C’ in para No. 5.23 of the Orig. Appln.), from 02/06/2022 till repayment/ realization, and, in default, for sale of mortgaged and hypothecated properties, as described in the Original Application.

¶28

Facts of the case, in short, are that defendant No.1 is the proprietorship firm and Mr Shripad Vijaykumar Kapare is the proprietor of the said firm. Defendant No.1 as borrower and defendants No. 2 & 3 as guarantors obtained initially Over Draft Loan facility under the Mortgage an amount of Rs. 60.00 lakhs from the applicant as working capital to start the business and purchase of machinery, vide sanction/arrangement letter dated 02/08/2013, on execution of relevant documents to secure the loan amounts including registered Deed of Further charge vide No. 3499/2013 dated 02/08/2013 and acceptance of terms and conditions as to repayment alongwith interest @ 12.75% p.a., as stated in Orig. Application. It is further pleaded that the

¶29

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 334/2022)

¶30

Page 3 of 8

¶31

defendants again obtained New Medium Term Loan facility of Rs. 36.00 lakhs and renewed the Overdraft Loan facility at existing limit i.e. an amount of Rs. 60.00 lakhs making total loan facility of Rs. 96.00 lakhs, vide Arrangement Letter dated 23/12/2014, on execution of relevant documents to secure the loan amounts including registered Deed of Further charge vide No. 4770/2014 dated 23/12/2014 and acceptance of terms and conditions as to repayment alongwith interest @ 14% p.a., as stated in Orig. Application. It is further pleaded that the defendants again obtained Cash Credit Loan facility of Rs. 5.00 lakhs and Term Loan facility of Rs. 55.00 lakh totally 60.00 lakhs for their business from the applicant bank vide Arrangement Letter dated 31/12/2020, on execution of relevant documents and acceptance of terms and conditions as to repayment of the loan amount alaongwith interest. Applicant bank pleads that due to Covid in the year 2020 the Government declared moratorium period due to lockdown and for repayment of the overdue amount in the

¶32

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 334/2022)

¶33

Page 4 of 8

¶34

moratorium period as per guidelines of the RBI, applicant bank sanctioned FITL which generated and repayment kept till March 2021 but the defendants did not repay the said loan amounts also. In the meantime, the defendants executed Revival Letters on 22/07/2016 and 15/05/2019 in favour of applicant and thereby accepted the liability to repay the loan amounts outstanding against them. Applicant pleads that however, the defendants could not follow the repayment programme as agreed and failed to repay it and therefore, the all loan accounts converted into NPA on 31/03/2021 and consequently demand notice U/S. 13(2) of the Act issued to the defendants on 10/05/2022 to which they did not pay any response. Hence this Original Application, with prayer for the reliefs sought, as mentioned in para No.1 above.

¶35

Though defendants No. 1 to 3 appeared in the matter, they failed to file their written statement and therefore, the Orig. Application proceeded without their written statement.

¶36

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶37

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 334/2022)

¶38

Page 5 of 8

¶39

The point that arises for consideration is, whether the applicant-bank is entitled for the claim made in the Orig. Application against the defendants, as prayed for ?

¶40

The applicant bank filed evidence on affidavit dated 06/06/2022 of Mr Samar Ramesh Dongre (Exh.4) along with list of documents (Exh.5) annexing therewith 13 documents, which are marked as Exh.A.W.3 to A.W. 13 on behalf of applicant, which clinches the claim of the applicant-bank against all the defendants. Moreover, in view of the fact that the averments in the Original Application have gone unrebutted, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for the prayers made therein. Perusal of the documents including entries of deposit of amounts by defendants in ledger extracts filed shows that the application is filed well within the prescribed period of limitation. Hence I hold that all the defendants are liable to pay to applicant bank the claim amount claimed in the Orig. Application with future reasonable interest considering meantime long period

(O.A. No. 334/2022)

( Madkar)

Page 6 of 8

Covid-Pandeic-19 and costs.

¶45

In the result, the present Orig. Application is allowed with costs, as under:

¶46

(A) Defendants No. 1 to 3 are ordered to pay jointly or severally sum of due cash credit loan facility of Rs. 6,94,558/- (Rs. six lakhs ninety four thousand five hundred fifty eight only) and Term Loan amount of Rs. 62,03,181/- (Rs. sixty two lakhs three thousand one hundred eighty one only) alongwith interest @ 8% p.a., Simple, and FITL loan amount of Rs. 4,99,828/-(Rs. four lakhs ninety nine thousand eight hundred twenty eight only) alongwith interest @ 8% p.a., Simple, from 02/06/2022 till repayment/ realization.

¶47

(B) Amount recovered, if any, by applicant-bank during pendency of the Orig. Appln. shall be reduced from such calculated amount before the Recovery Officer and demand notice shall be issued for balance amount.

¶48

(C)

¶49

(C) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged and hypothecated properties, as described in the Orig. Appln. towards realization of their dues;

¶50

(D) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of all the defendants towards

¶51

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 334/2022)

¶52

Page 7 of 8

¶53

realization of the debt due.

¶54

(E) The applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶55

(F) The applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶56

(G) The applicant bank to file affidavit before the Recovery Officer about sale of property and appropriation of money in the loan account under the securitization, if any, before issuance of demand notice.

¶57

(H) Copy of order be sent to the Recovery Officer.

¶58

(I) Communicate copy of the order to the parties concerned Order be uploaded on the official website.

¶59

( Vimal Gupta ) PRESIDING OFFICER, Aurangabad, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, Date: 17/04/2024 Aurangabad

¶60

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 334/2022)

¶61

Page 8 of 8

State Bank of India v. Ms Sai Samarth Traders thro it Prop Shripad Vijaykumar Kapre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ms Sai Samarth Traders thro it Prop Shripad Vijaykumar Kapre

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 Hotel Harsh

Bank of Maharashtra versus Alkabai Bhausaheb Udhar

Bank of Maharashtra versus Kalyan Tukaram Bhalekar

Ktk Infotronics Private Limited versus the Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S Datta Enterprises

State Bank of India versus M/S. Kulaswamini Enterprises