Allowed

State Bank of India v. Kidzee Preschool

DRT25 Apr 2024OA/74/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the bank's application for recovery of Rs. 24.24 lakhs outstanding on a term loan availed under the Stand-up India Scheme, finding the claim fully substantiated by the record and unrebutted by the absent defendant.

What did the court decide?

Defendant ordered to pay Rs. 24,26,864/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of order; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated and other properties for realization.

State Bank of India versus Kidzee Preschool — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on:	12/10/2021
Registered on:	04/04/2022
Decided on:	25/04/2024
Duration:	Y. M. D.
	2 – 6 - 14

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, at Aurangabad

¶3

Original Application No. 74 of 2022

¶4

Claim : Recovery of Rs. 24,26,864/-

¶5

State Bank of India,

¶6

a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its local Head Office at Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai and one of its branch at Nilanga at Nilanga Dist. Latur through one of its officer i.e. Branch Manager Mr Saurabh Kumar, age 28 years occup. service as Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch at Nilanga Dist. Latur and having authority to file the application which includes the authority to sign and verify the application.

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 74/2022)

¶10

Page 1 of 7

¶11

KIDZEE PRESCHOOL through its Proprietor, Trupti Diliprao Chavan R/o survey No. 284/BMCH No. 197, near Light Office, Hadga Road, Shivaji Nagar, Nilanga Tal. Nilanga Dist. Latur – 413521 email:[email protected], [email protected] Mob. No. 7350731429

¶12

AND R/o Shivaji Housing Society, opposite Bus Stand, Udgir Tal. Udgir Dist. Latur - 413517

¶13

…Defendant

¶14

Appearance :

¶15

For Applicant-bank : Mr. Arun V. Rakh, Adv. For Defendant: Absent

¶16

Shri Vimal Gupta Presiding Officer

¶17

Pronounced on: 25^th April 2024

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The applicant-bank has filed the present Original Application against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs. 24,26,864/- (Rs. twenty four lakhs twenty six thousand eight hundred sixty four only) towards outstanding of loan amount

¶20

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 74/2022)

¶21

Page 2 of 7

¶22

availed by him, together with interest @ 9.95% p.a. with monthly rests, compoundable from 08/10/2021 onwards besides 2% penal interest till repayment/ realization, and, in default, for sale of hypothecated properties, as described in the Original Application.

¶23

Facts of the case, in short, are that the defendant has obtained Term Loan of Rs. 17.50 lakhs under the Stand-up India Scheme with guarantee under the CGSSI Working Capital to start business on personal guarantee, on 21/12/2017, on execution of relevant documents to secure the loan amount, including Hypothecation Agreement dated 21/12/2017 in favour of applicant bank, as shown in Orig. Application and on acceptance of terms and conditions as to repayment alongwith interest @ 11% p.a. with monthly rests, by 82 EMI of Rs. 31785/-, each, and first installment was to be paid on or before 21/08/2018. It is pleaded that the defendant also agreed to pay penal interest @ 2% p.a. in case of default in repayment schedule as agreed. It is pleaded that however, the defendant could not follow the repayment

¶24

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 74/2022)

¶25

Page 3 of 7

¶26

programme and failed to repay it as agreed and thereby the loan account classified as NPA. It is further pleaded that the defendant

¶27

though was requested to repay the loan amount time and again, he failed to do so. Hence lastly the applicant issued demand notice on 25/01/2021 which he refused to accept it. It is further pleaded that in the meantime, the defendant requested to extend the repayment period vide request letter dated 04/11/2020. However, though he availed sufficient period to repay the amount due against him, he failed to repay it. Hence this Original Application with prayer for the reliefs sought, as mentioned in para No.1 above.

¶28

Though the defendant duly served with summons of the Orig. Application, by hand, vide service affidavit Exh. 9 he preferred to remain absent in the matter and therefore, the matter proceeded ex parte against him, vide order dated 09/10/2023.

¶29

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant bank.

¶30

The point that arises for consideration is, whether the

¶31

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 74/2022)

¶32

Page 4 of 7

¶33

applicant-bank is entitled for the claim made in the Orig. Application against the defendants, as prayed for ?

¶34

Perused the record. The applicant bank filed evidence on affidavit of Mr Saurabh Kumar, Branch Manager (Exh.4) along with list of documents (Exh.5) annexing therewith 6 documents, which are marked as Exh.A.W.1 to A.W. 6 on behalf of the applicant, which clinches the claim of the applicant-bank against the defendant. 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 defendant in statement of account filed shows that the Orig. Application is filed well within the prescribed period of limitation. Hence I hold that both the defendant is liable to pay to applicant bank the claim amount claimed in the Orig. Application with future reasonable interest considering meantime long period Covid-Pandeic-19 and costs.

¶35

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 74/2022)

¶36

Page 5 of 7

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

(A) Defendant is ordered to pay sum of Rs. 24,26,864/- (Rs. twenty four lakhs twenty six thousand eight hundred sixty four only) alongwith interest @ 8% p.a., Simple, from the date of order till repayment/ realization.

¶40

(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.

¶41

(C) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated property- purchased by bank funds, as described in the Orig. Appln. towards realization of their dues.

¶42

(D) The applicant-bank is entitled to proceed against the person and properties of the defendant towards realization of the debt due.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

(G) The applicant bank to file affidavit before the Recovery

¶46

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 74/2022)

¶47

Page 6 of 7

¶48

Officer about sale of property and appropriation of money in the loan account under the securitization, if any, before issuance of demand notice.

¶49

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

¶50

(I) Communicate copy of the order to the parties concerned

¶51

Order be uploaded on the official website.

¶52

( Vimal Gupta ) PRESIDING OFFICER, Aurangabad, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, Date: 25/04/2024 Aurangabad

¶53

( Madkar) (O.A. No. 74/2022)

¶54

Page 7 of 7

State Bank of India v. Kidzee Preschool

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Kidzee Preschool

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Balasaheb Yogiraj Sanap

Bank of Maharashtra versus Subhash Gopinath Bankar

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Khale Commercial Goat Farm

Eknath Budha Patil versus Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank)

State Bank of India versus Irfan Chand Mahebub Pathan

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Limbaji Vishwanath Ghuge