Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S. S.R.R. Solutions

DRT8 Jan 2024OA/65/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs.47.32 lakhs along with future interest against two respondents. The order affirmed the bank's right to sell hypothecated property and proceed against the guarantor's assets.

What did the court decide?

Bank allowed recovery of Rs.47.32 lakhs with interest; sale of hypothecated property permitted; recovery certificate issued against joint defendants and guarantor.

State Bank of India versus M/S. S.R.R. Solutions — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY'2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER OA.No.65 ol2022

¶3

Between:

¶4

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

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. S.R.R. Solutions, Represented by its^proprietor, Sri T.V.V.S. K. RajeswarTirumalasetty, L-24-t35, Opp Hanuman Mandir, Tadbund, Bowenpally, Hyderabad - 500 003.

¶8

Sri T.V.V. S. K. RajeswarTirumalasetty, Aged about 25 years, occ: business, R/o H.No.4-1-144, K.T. Road, Bheema nava ripeta, Vijayawada - 520 001.

¶9

And also at

¶10

Sri T.V.V. S. K. RajeswarTirumalasetty, Aged about 25 years, occ: business, R/ o 4-l-60/201, Keshawa Apartment, Snehapuri colony, Road no.6, Nacharam, Hyderabad - 5OO 076.

¶11

Counsel for the^parties:

For the Applicant

For the Defendants

Smt B. RamanaKumari

Sri D. Raghavulu

(OA.No.65 of 2022)

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.47,32,529/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Thirty two thousand five hundred and twenty nine only) with future interest @ 7olo p,awith monthly restsfrom 04.03.2022 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a proprietary concern and defendant no.2 is its proprietor availed cash credit e-DFS facility of Rs.70.00 lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 10.03.2021. The defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation for the sum of Rs.70.00 lakhs. Defendant no.2 executed guarantee agreement dated 10.3.202L for repayment of cash credit e-DFS facility. After availing the loan facility, 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 t8.02.2022. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶20

Ld counsel for defen not filed written
statement.
: ttBrrN,,mt I
$:;;.,:.i#

¶21

(OA.No.65 of 2022)

¶22

Shri O. Muralidhar, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.B.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

7 ' Though Defendant counser fired vakarath but not fired written statement. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, officiar of the Appricant Bank was examined and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.Al to A.g. In view of the above, I hold that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the oA against the Defendants and hence the Applica. entitled to recover

¶27

the claim made in the OA with fu

¶28

r!+'Y* B. In the result, the present OA ,towet a@, U,lA"l$l,q, ",I "'9S 9. The Defendants are jointly and the Applicant roiryr,1? Bank a total sum of Rs.47,32,529/_ Seven Lakhs Thirty two thousand five hundred and twenty nine only) with Future interest @ 7o/o p.afrom 04.03.2022 till rea lization.

¶29

(OA.No.65 of 2022)

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶34

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶36

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of Jan'2024)

¶37

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶38

-B
1***
r n I rilr ,ll?[ :
Ifue coPy
-laE ^=' /J- 0,.-..- -
'Qt*t',;#
"i:;';f;1,#,d, , r,

¶39

State Bank of India v. M/S. S.R.R. Solutions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S. S.R.R. Solutions

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

Canara Bank versus Mr. M. Vivek

Union Bank of India versus M/S Vishwarajaa Industries

State Bank of India versus Smt. Gadmoor Rani

State Bank of India versus M/S. Madhu Infra

State Bank of India versus M/S. Sindhu Industries

State Bank of India versus Sri Varakantham Nanda Kumar Reddy