Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Tirumala Venkata Ramana Jewellers

DRT29 Feb 2024OA/371/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order admits an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs.43.91 lakhs with interest against a jeweller and sole proprietor. The court held the defendants jointly liable and allowed the claim, ordering the disbursement of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants ordered to pay Rs.43,91,795 plus interest @ 11.65% p.a.; recovery certificate issued; authority to auction mortgaged/schedule properties.

State Bank of India versus M/S Tirumala Venkata… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY,2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.371 of 2022

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Bus Terminal complex (Commuter Amenity Centre), Koti, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Tirumala VenkataRamana Jewellers, represented by its Prop: Y.V. Ramana Reddy, major, Male, Room No.40, N.S.Complex, Proddatur - 516 360.

¶10

Sri Y.V. Ramana Reddy, s/o T. Venkata Rami Reddy, major, male, R/o Plot no.MIG-4, C-13 & C-14, AP Housing Board Colony, Proddatur - 516 360.

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

For the Applicant

¶14

For the Defendants

¶15

Sri P.V. Satyanarayana

¶16

Sri B. Raja Rao

¶17

ii: z s ttB znzq :
i& ^ :.,
&,*,*P

¶18

(oA.No.37112022)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The Applicant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.43,91,795l- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Ninety One thousand Seven hundred and Ninety five

¶21

only) with interest @ 11.65% p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for sale of mortgaged property and hypothecated movabres as described in the schedule "A & B" to OA.

¶22

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern represented by defendant no.2 as its sole proprietor whoavailed cash credit loan limit of Rs.50,OO lakhs on 31.03.2019. The defendants 1 & 2 executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 31.03.2018 in favour of the Applicant Bank. The defendant no.2 deposited the regd. Sale deed no.B1/2008 dated 03.01.2008 by way of equitable mortgage of schedule mentioned property. The said limit was renewed on 16.06.2020 and the defendants executed necessary loan documents vide arrangement letter dated 16.06.2020. The defendants executed supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation dateq",-1_6.06.2020 and defendant no.2 . t-- -.- - extended the earlier deposit of title deeds in

¶23

(OA.No.37t/20221

¶24

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facility 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 the account, and the applicant bank issued legal notice dated 01.11.2022 but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total craim of Applicant against defendants isRs.43,9L,795/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Ninety One thousand Seven hundred and Ninety five onty) with interest @ ll.650/o p.a with monthly rests from date of applicationtill realization. Hence the OA.

¶25

The Defendants filed written statement and denied the averments stated in the oA. It is contended that the Applicant bank did not give time to go through letter of arrangement and obtained signatures. It is alleged that the hypothecation of movables and not created the equitable mortgage of the schedule property. It is further contended that the defendants preferred Wp.No.2894g/2022 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Ap and obtained orders with a direction to deposit l/3'd of outstanding loan amount and balance 2/3'd amount within 3 months. The defendants deposited Rs.22,75,000/- on

¶26

(oA.No.37t/zo2zl

¶27

3' The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Srip. Madhav Rao, Manager as AW.1 and through him marked 12 documents as Ex.A. 1 to A.12. Defendant no.2 examined himself as DW.1 but no documents produced by him.

¶28

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶29

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶30

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

¶31

ii) To what relief ?

¶32

Point No.i):

¶33

6' AW.l who was examined on beharf of the Appricant have crearry deposed the riabirity of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.12 exhibited by the Appricant bank crearry estabrish the riabirity of the defendants.

¶34

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants, Even though defendant no.2 examined himself as DW.1, his evidence is in noway helpful to him. The defendant'NeiZt,eving taken the plea that the : ; .'::i.

¶35

applicant bank took gigngitjies"n';t,ry\aocumenrs faited to place any substantial prdof to tnaf'effect.^-qi ,^{a perusal} of the

¶36

n n rrn on4t

¶37

documents """.rt"Jifr, th3^g"liq,.nTeL @J} 't that a, the rerevant \tB- %sh,*." --Qs-Y".,.#iJ SiW

¶38

(OA. No.37112022)

¶39

documents are executed by the defendants in the normal course of transaction. The defendant No.2 very vaguery contended that particulars made in the oA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants are liable to pay the OA claim. considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenabre. Hence the Applicant bank is entitled to claim the oA amount from defendants. Therefore, the oA claim deserves to be allowed against the defendants.

¶40

Point No.ii)

¶41

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

¶42

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.43,9L,795l- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Ninety One thousand Seven hundred and Ninety five only) with interest @ lL.650/o p.a from date of applicationtill realization.

¶43

ii) The applicant bank is against the Mortgaged property and bed in schedules "A & B" to OA.

¶44

(oA.No.371l2022)

¶45

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

¶46

iv) The Applicant Bank is entifled to the costs of the OA.

¶47

v) 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 29th day of Feb'2O24)

¶51

sd/-

¶52

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶53

DRT":, i.lYDEP.AgAD.

State Bank of India v. M/S Tirumala Venkata Ramana Jewellers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Tirumala Venkata Ramana Jewellers

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S. Sunali Associates

State Bank of India versus M/S. Vishwa Apparel

Canara Bank versus M/S. Blue Max Impex (India) Private Limited

M S Shiridi Sai Mineral Water Plant versus Bank of Baroda

State Bank of India versus E. Varaprasad

Canara Bank versus M/S. Gayatri Water Plant