Allowed

State Bank of India v. Shreyans Enterprises

DRT11 Sept 2024OA/88/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an Original Application filed by a bank for recovery of dues of Rs. 67.43 lakhs along with interest from a firm and its partners. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, holding that the bank established its claim, allowed the application, declared the defendants liable for payment, and authorized proceedings against hypothecated movables and other properties.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 67,43,048/- with interest at 19.25% p.a. from filing till realization; Applicant Bank authorized to proceed against hypothecated movables and other properties for realization.

State Bank of India versus Shreyans Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER' 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESTDING OFFICER

¶3

OA.No.88 ol 2024

¶4

Between:

¶5

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

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

ShreyansEnterprises,

¶9

Represented by its partners SmtSangeeta lain and Ms. Ishita Jain, major, 16-10-319, shop no.310, 1't floor, Mahaboob Mansion, Sri Saikrupa Market, Malakpetgunj, Hyderabad - 500 036.

¶10

Smtsangeeta Jain, w/o Sri Ambalal Jain, female, major, 16-10-318, shop no.310, 1" floor, Mahaboob Mansion, Sri Saikrupa Market, Malakpetgunj, Hyderabad - 500 036.

¶11

And also at

¶12

H.No.15-1-515 to 258, Siddiamber Bazar, Nampally, Hyderabad _ 12.

¶13

Ms. Ishita Jain, D/o Sri Ambalal Jain, fema 16-10-318, shop no.310, 1" floor, Mahaboob Mansio'"^r,{ffi\ Sri Saikrupa Market, Malak [,r;qi^{11 sEP ?at} fi ,*

¶14

(oA.No.88/202a)

¶15

Hyderabad - 500 036.

¶16

And also at

¶17

H.No.15-1-515 to 258, Siddiamber Bazar, Nampally, Hyderabad - 12.

¶18

Defendants

¶19

Counsel for the Parties:

¶20

For the Applicant Sri P.V. Satyanarayana

For the Defendants

Expa rte

ORDER

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs,67,43,048/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Lakhs Forty three thousand and Forty Eight only) with interest @ 19.25%^p,a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶25

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a firm represented by partners / defendants 2 & 3 availed cash credit loan of Rs.5g.OO lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 10.02.2021. the defendants executed Agreement of loan cum hypo uarantee agreement dated 10.02.2021 res n was secured by way of hypothecation of g* Tq TfF,"frl"' : fully described in the r%,: z ",,^#,, \W,rorP'

¶26

(oA.No.88/2024)

¶27

schedule to OA. The defendants availed additional loan limit of Rs.B.00 lakhs on LL.08.2022 and executed supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated Lt.OB.2O22. 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 on 29.08.2023 and issued demand notice dated 31.0g.2023 and also issued legal notice dated 17.O2.2o24.Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶28

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 08.07.2024.

¶29

Sri ManjulDlxit, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.19.

¶30

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶31

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?

¶32

Defendants called absent pa rte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant the Applicant Bank WAS examined and he ts as Ex.A1 to A.19. In

¶33

(oA.No.88/2024)

¶34

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 entitred to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶35

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

¶36

The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.67,4g,O48l_ (Rupees Sixty Seven Lakhs Forty three thousand and Forty Eight only) with interest @ 19.25olo p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶37

The Appricant bank is entiued to proceed against the hypothecated movables as described in schedure to oA towards realization of the debt due.

¶38

10, The Applicant Bank is also entiUed 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.

¶39

The Applicant Bank is en_tqq"ed-tq the costs of the OA.

¶40

t2. The Applicant s two weeks from the date of receipt of ,{,^11sEPan ;

¶41

(oA.No.88/202a)

¶42

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶43

t4. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶44

(Dictated to the^p.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me court on this the 11th day of Sept, 2024)

¶45

in the open

¶46

sdl(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶47

re"<br>* llsEPmt :
U.
.Iq r{t ,o S-S
'Q;m.89;

¶48

t8%

¶49

o'{.t'"'Ji'l'*;, DI"f.I.^{r'r : ''-- "'}

State Bank of India v. Shreyans Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Shreyans Enterprises

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

Ms Amrit Enterprises versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Saanvi Ssi

Bank of Maharashtra versus Medfin Pharma Services Pvt. Ptd

M/s.Mallikarjuna Purified Water Plant versus State Bank of India

Jambula Ravi versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Kush Industries