Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/s. Bairu Consultancy Services Private Limited

DRT7 Nov 2024OA/93/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In OA.No.93 of 2024, the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's claim for recovery of approximately Rs. 29.46 lakhs plus future interest against three defendants. The defendants appeared ex parte, and upon examining the bank's witnesses and documents, the court held the claim established and awarded the decree with costs and a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Decree passed for recovery of Rs. 29,46,049 with future interest; recovery certificate issued; applicant entitled to proceed against hypothecated assets and other properties.

State Bank of India versus M/s. Bairu Consultancy… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER'2f.24

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶4

OA.No.93 ot 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch-II, 1-8-563/1, 1't floor, Opp: Sandhya Theatre, RTC Cross roads, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Bairu Consultancy Services Private Limited, Office at H.no.11-15-284, Doctors colony, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy - 500 035. Represented by its Director Sri Chaitanya Swamy Bairu

¶10

Also at

¶11

R/o 3-100, Dandumailaram Village, Ranga Reddy dist- 501 508.

¶12

Sri Chaitanya Swamy Bairu, s/o Shetty Bairu, aged 59 years, occ: business, director of M/s. Bairu Consultancy Services Private Limited, H.No. 1 1-15-284, Doctors colony, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy - StjO O:s.

¶13

0 7 N0lJ z02t

¶14

Also at

¶15

R/o 3-100, Dandumailaram Village, Ranga Reddy dist- 501 508.

¶16

(oA.No.93/2024)

¶17

Smt Padmavathi Bairu, c/o Krishna Teegulla, aged 47 years, occ: business, director of M/s. Bairu consultancy Services Private Limited, R/o 3-100, Dandumailaram Village, Ranga Reddy dist-501 5OB.

¶18

Defendants

¶19

Counsel for the^parties:

¶20

For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶21

Smt B. Ramana Kumari Exparte

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.29,46,049l_ (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Forty Six Thousand and Forty Nine only) with future interest @ 72.400/o p'a with monthry rests from 23.02.2024 ti, the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated property as described in the schedule to OA.

¶24

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a Company and defendants No.2 and 3 are its partners avaired cash credit facirity of Rs.1.00 crore on 17.02.2022. To secure due repayment _of roan, the crefendants executed Agreement of roan r4ffi\and guarantee agreement dated 17.02. zozz.^/ Ste.^{uffinn ti'"\ru.irities,} the defendanrs failed to compty $fe '..i!erm6^{q Sfl.qQt, n$}} tn" appticant bank was} .: -.,',:)",, ".dll ."guifrl/ '$39#;z'

¶25

(oA.No.93/2024)

¶26

constrained to classify the account as NpA and issued legal notice dated 08.08.2023 and 12.02.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this oA.

¶27

Defendants No.1 to 3 called absent and set exparte on t.t0.2024.

¶28

Smt M. Sarala, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined herself AS AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.10.

¶29

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶30

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?

¶31

Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.10. In 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 entitled to recover the clai with future interest and costs. *

¶32

[^{7 NoIm} Ej

¶33

(oA.No.e3l2024)

¶34

8' In the resurt, the present oA is ailowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2g,46,O4g/_ (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Forty Six Thousand and Forty Nine only) with future interest @ 12.40% p.a from 23.02.2024 till the date of realization;

¶35

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated

¶36

assets as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶37

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person

¶38

and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant

¶39

no.1 firm towards rea lization of the debt due.

¶40

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

¶41

The Appricant sha' fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶42

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶43

L4' Communicate a copy of tf e order to the parties concerned.

¶44

:31iffi-E**;lTilf:iJr5t corrected' sisned and pronounced bv me in the open

¶45

sd/-
i., g$ '9<br>0 7 ll0V rfnl \l pREsrDtNGoFFtcER(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
ruE qo?)<br>TRUE 90,
' "ll
''f il*ffii( I s'%i
""'.,.-'$",,, i.ri,)t ,, *,,"t:3V..'.'.,1$9 r+f:f#;.rur.assrlReellla;^,.,
: -i --;;=-Z?'Opgpl 1),;.'

State Bank of India v. M/s. Bairu Consultancy Services Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/s. Bairu Consultancy Services Private Limited

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

State Bank of India versus M/S. Jaya Lakshmi Industries

State Bank of India versus M/S. Geetha Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Mr. B. Samuel

State Bank of India versus M/S. Jyothi Food Products

Union Bank of India versus Sri Kalapatapu Krishna Murthy

State Bank of India versus M/S. Nst Mart