Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. D. Crafts Dental Lab

DRT10 May 2024OA/336/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Office for Arbitration filed by State Bank of India against a dental lab and its partners. The court held that the bank established its claim of approximately Rs. 51.65 lakhs and ordered recovery of the dues along with future interest, costs, and realisation against secured assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 51,65,492/- with interest @ 11.650% p.a.; Bank entitled to realise proceeds from hypothecated movables, mortgaged properties and properties of defendants.

State Bank of India versus M/S. D. Crafts Dental Lab — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1OTH DAY OF MAY' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶4

OA.No.336 ot 2023

¶5

Between :

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-II, 1-B-563/1, RTC Cross roads, Opp Sandhya Theatre, 1't floor, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 500 020. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. D. Crafts Dental Lab, A partnership firm, Represented by its partners, Shri ShailajaPuspa chambers, H.No.13-4-27 &27/D, Vikas Nagar, Gaddiannaram, Ranga Reddy, TS- 500 060.

¶10

Sri Yalamanchi Srinivas, s/o Sri Y. Nageswar Rao, aged 47 years, male,

¶11

H.No. 12- 1-532/ 778, Sravana Sri No.3, Nagole, Medchal, Malkajgiri district,

¶12

Telangana - 500 068.

¶13

Miss Ya la m a n ch iNa rm ili, D/o Y. Srinivas, aged 20 years, Female, H. No., 12- 1-532/ 778 Sravana Sri No.3, Nagole, /t'4y ""tB

¶14

,lP

¶15

(OA.No.363 of 2023)

¶16

Counsel For the Pa rties : For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶17

Sri C. Prabhakar Exparte

¶18

ORDER

¶19

1, The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.51,65,492l- (Rupees Fifty One lakhs Sixty Five thousand Four hundred and Ninety Two only) with further interest @ 11.650lo p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables and mortgaged immovable properties as described in the schedule to OA.

¶20

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a partnership firm represented by its partners/ defendants 2 & 3 for carrying on business of dental tooths and allied services availed cash credit of Rs.10.00 lakhs and term loan of Rs.140.00 lakhs totaling to Rs.150.00 lakhs vide arrangement letter dated 22.3.2022. Defendants 1 to 3 joinuy executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 22.03.2022. Defendants 2 & 3 executed guarantee agreement guaranteeing due repayment of loa n am 00 lakhs. To secure due repayment of loan frim hypothecated all its movable assets o& hedule property - I. Ut;u.ilix 9

¶21

(oA.No.363 of 2023)

¶22

defendant no.2 created equitable mortgage on 21.03.2022 by way of deposit of sale deed no.2B74/2022 dated 24.02.2022 in respect of OA schedule property-Il. Defendant no.2 confirmed the creation of said mortgage by way of letter dated 27.04.2022. 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 28.Lt.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶23

Defendants No.1to 3 called absent and set exparte on L6.04.2024.

¶24

Shri leeban Mishra, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.11.

¶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 in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶27

Defendants called absen substantiate the case .nW.r, of the Applicant Ban Applicant Bank WAS examined and he exniflit-ed rele0arittUo4lfrren tt ris rx.nr to A.11. In : ''''

¶28

(OA.No.363 of 2023)

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.51,65,4921- (Rupees Fifty One lakhs Sixty Five thousand Four hundred and Ninety Two only) with further interest @ 11.650lo p.a From date of filing of OAtill the date of realization;

¶32

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated movables and mortgaged properties as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶33

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶34

L2. The Applicant Bank is entitled(f

¶35

*
A
1I
crl
\1,:.o1,..
,.

¶36

(OA.No.353 of 2023)

¶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 loth day of May'2024)

¶41

sdl_ (G. GOPTCHAND)

¶42

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶43

,,i7*{*r'^
..-' ti
l+.r;:/| (!rii,iN'.."#

¶44

tr:"ffi,

¶45

DRT.l, !:iD'-ilAeAC.

State Bank of India v. M/S. D. Crafts Dental Lab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. D. Crafts Dental Lab

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

Srinivasu Alamanda versus Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank

State Bank of India versus M/S. Potay

State Bank of India versus Ayanar Polymers

Punjab National Bank versus Ghanshyamdas Gems Jewels

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Shyma Khan

Union Bank of India versus Sandeep Kumar Reddy