Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sangeeta Raosaheb Raut

DRT22 Mar 2024OA/455/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by State Bank of India for recovery of dues from two borrowers/guarantors. The court held the defendants liable to pay the principal claim amount, future interest, and costs, and directed the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Ordered repayment of Rs. 24,27,520.73 with 8% p.a. future interest and costs. Directed issuance of recovery certificate. Authorized attachment of properties.

State Bank of India versus Sangeeta Raosaheb Raut — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 23/09/2022 Registered on: 01/11/2022 Decided on: 22/03/2024 Duration: Y. M. D. 1 – 5 - 29

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, at Aurangabad

¶3

Original Application No. 455 of 2022

¶4

Total claim amount – Rs. 24,27,520.73 ps.

¶5

State Bank of India,

¶6

a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Local Head Office at Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 and one of its branch Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Aurangabad, at plot No. 1, Ground floor, Administrative building, Town Centre, N-5, CIDCO, Aurangabad, through its authorized signatory Shri Abhay Shridhar Boradkar, Manager & City Case Officer.

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Smt. Sangeeta Raosaheb Raut, age 39 years occup. business R/o Modikhana, Jalna – 431203, phone No. 9765758887 & 9403237777 & 9422215310

¶10

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 455/2022`)

¶11

Page 1 of 6

¶12

Smt. Laxmibai Raosaheb Raut, age 50 years occup. R/o Modikhana, Jalna – 431203 …Defendants

¶13

Appearance :

¶14

For the applicant-bank Mrs. A.B. Karadkhedkar, Adv., For Defendants Absent

¶15

Shri Vimal Gupta, Presiding Officer

¶16

Pronounced on : 22^nd March 2024

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This is an application under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of the dues in the sum of Rs. 24,27,520.73ps (Rs. twenty four lakhs twenty seven thousand five hundred twenty and ps. seventy three only) together with future interest thereon @ 11.55% p.a. for cash credit loan amount and @ 9% p.a. for term loan amount, with monthly rests, from 09/09/2022 till repayment/ realization. Applicant bank pleads that defendant No.1 is running a business of manufacturing cement blocks at Jalna. Defendant No.1 as borrower and Deft. No.2 as his

¶19

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 455/2022`)

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

guarantor obtained Cash Credit loan facility of Rs. 9.50 lakhs and term loan of Rs. 13.30 lakhs for the said business from the applicant bank on 08/01/2019, on execution of relevant documents in favour of applicant to secure the loan amounts and accepting terms and conditions as to repayment of cash credit loan repayable on demand and term loan by 76 equal monthly installments of Rs. 24060/-, each alongwith contractual interest. . It is pleaded that however, the defendants failed to repay the loan amount as agreed and thereby both the loan accounts converted into NPA on 31/10/2020 and consequently issued legal demand notice on 22/08/2022 to which they did not pay any response and failed to repay the loan amount. Hence this Orig. Application. It is pleaded that in the meantime, defendants executed Revival letter cum acknowledgment of debt on 06/12/2021 and thereby accepted the liability to repay the loan amount outstanding against them.

¶22

Both the defendants duly served with the summons of the Orig. Application through the Manager, S.B.I., SARB, Aurangabad personally, vide report dated 17/04/2023 Exh. 8, however, both the defendants preferred to remain away and

¶23

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 455/2022`)

¶24

Page 3 of 6

¶25

therefore, the Orig. Application proceeded exparte against them.

¶26

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶27

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 ?

¶28

The applicant bank has filed Claim Affidavit (Exhibit-4) of Mr. Abhay Shridhar Boradkar, Manager & City Case Officer. The applicant bank also filed list of original documents (Exh.5) annexing therewith 10 documents to corroborate and prove its claim, as given in the Original Application, which are marked as Exh.A.W.1 to A.W. 10 on behalf of the applicant, which clinches the claim of the applicant-bank against both 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-bank is entitled for the prayers made therein. Further more, perusal of the documents on record shows that the application is filed within the period of limitation. Hence I hold that both the defendants are liable to pay to applicant-bank the claimed amount in the Orig. Application with

¶29

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 455/2022`)

¶30

Page 4 of 6

¶31

future reasonable interest considering meantime Covid-Pandeic19 long period and costs. Hence the following order.

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

(A) Original Application No. 455 of 2022 is allowed with costs.

¶34

(B) Defendants No.1 & 2 are directed to pay to the applicant-bank jointly or severally the aggregate sum of Rs. 24,27,520.73ps (Rs. twenty four lakhs twenty seven thousand five hundred twenty and ps. seventy three only) with pendente lite and future interest @ 8 (eight)% per annum, simple, from the date of application till payment/realisation.

¶35

(C) 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.

¶36

(D) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the and as

¶37

mortgaged hypothecated properties, described in the Orig. Application towards realization of their dues;

¶38

(E) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the

¶39

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 455/2022`)

¶40

Page 5 of 6

¶41

person and properties of both the defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶42

(F) The applicant bank is entitled to the costs of the Original Application.

¶43

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

¶44

(H) Issue Recovery Certificate.

¶45

(I) Communicate order to the parties concerned.

¶46

Order be uploaded on the official website.

¶47

( Vimal Gupta ) PRESIDING OFFICER, Aurangabad, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, Date: 22/03/2024 Aurangabad

¶48

(Madkar) (O.A. No. 455/2022`)

¶49

Page 6 of 6

State Bank of India v. Sangeeta Raosaheb Raut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sangeeta Raosaheb Raut

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

Similar cases

Sushreya Sonography Centre versus Aditya Birla Finance Limited

Shri Murlidgar Ramgopal Mundada versus the Chikhli Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Sunil Jagannath Dusing versus Bajaj Finance Ltd.

Sunder Heritage versus State Bank of India

Narayan Bhagvantrao Jadhav versus Shubham Housing Development Finance Company Limited

Pankaj s o Kiranlal Zalani versus State Bank of India