Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S Jai Shree Krishna Agency

DRT22 Nov 2024OA/936/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

,Allowed the debtor recovery application filed by State Bank of India against two borrowers. The Tribunal decreed joint and several liability to pay the principal amount along with interest and costs, issued a recovery certificate, and granted an injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with their properties.

What did the court decide?

The defendants were ordered to jointly and severally pay Rs. 1,10,48,215.00 along with interest. A Recovery Certificate was issued under Section 19(2). An injunction was granted restraining the defend

State Bank of India versus M/S Jai Shree Krishna Agency — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL : JABALPUR

¶2

(for the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh)

¶3

(Presiding Officer - Hon'ble Shri Ram Niwas Patel)

¶4

Original Applicotion No.^- 936122

¶5

State Bank of lndia, Stressed Assets Recovery^Branch, 3'd Floor, Zonal Office, Vijay Nagar, Jabatpur^(M.P.)

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

01 ) M/s Jai Shree Krishna Agency, Through its ProprietorDevendra Singh Yadav, S/o Late Hari Prasad Yadav, Sagar Road, Bagauta Tiraha, District-Chhatarpur^{(M. P.} );

¶9

Atso at: Chetgiri CotonY, Tehsit & Distt.-Chhatarpur^(M.P.)

¶10

1. Anshuman Singh, S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Ward No.-21, Near Govind Takij, Chhattarpur^(M.P. ) 471001

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant : Shri Vivek Shukta, Advocate

¶13

Defendants : Ex'parte

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

(Dated : 22nd November,2024)

¶16

The Applicant-Bank has fited the present Origina[ Apptication u/s 19 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on 29107 122 against the Defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,10,48,215.00 (Rupees One Crore, Ten Lac, Fourty Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Fifteen onty) atong with interest and other retiefs as stated.

¶17

2, The brief facts of the case are that on the request of Defendant No.-1 concern through its Proprietor, the Appticant Bank sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 105 Lac on 06/0't 120 and WCTL of Rs. 20 Lac under GECL Scheme on 30/05/20 and in consideration of the same the Defendants in addition to execution of loan and guarantee documents have also created equitable mortgage over the immovable property, i.e,,

¶18

i) Residentiat Ptot situated at Mouja Chhattarpur, P.H. No.-5i, R.N.M. Chhattarpur, Part of Survey No.-50012/k/2 (after mutation

¶19

¶20

oA936122

¶21

500/2/k/21002),^'area admeasuring 675 sq.ft., Chetgiri Marg, Near Smt. Lalita Yadav House, Tehsil & District-Chhattarpur (M.P.); betonging to Defendant No.-1;

¶22

ii) Residential Ptot situated at Mouja Chhattarpur, P.H. No.-51, R.N.M. Chhattarpur, Part of Survey No.-177/111/30, area admeasuring 1250 sq.ft., Narayanpura Road, Opp. Vrindapuram Colony, Tehsit & DistrictChhattarpur (M.P.); betonging to Defendant No.-2; iii) Residential Ptot situated at Survey No.-177 l1l1/7, 177 l1/11116, area admeasuring 1100 sq.ft., Narayanpura Road, Opp. Vrindapuram Cotony, Tehsit & District-Chhattarpur (M.P.); belonging to Defendant No.-1.

¶23

The Defendant firm avaited the credit facilities and also executed Batance Confirmation Letter on 20/04122. The accounts were subsequently ctassified as NPA and the Defendants failed to liquidate the outstanding dues despite issuance of Legat Notice on 30106/22 by the Appticant Bank. The Appticant-Bank has relied upon the documents at Ex. A-1 to A-18 which were proved by Shri Manmohan Anand, Chief Manager.

¶24

Despite service of notice, the Defendants neither appeared nor fited written statement. They were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26110/23. There is therefore, no reason to disbelieve the contentions of the Bank. Considering the facts of the case, I opine that the Defendants are jointty and severatty liabte to pay the claim amount together with interest and costs. The Appticant-Bank in its apptication has claimed interest @8.75% p.a. with monthly rests in cash credit account and interest @8.30%^p.a. with monthty rests in WCTL account. However,^{I feet} it^{fair andreasonableto} grant interest @8.75% p.a. simpte in cash credit account and^interest @8.30% p.a. simpty in WCTL account pendentetite and future til[ reatization of^the dues. The mortgaged^properties are^{liabteto be sotdfor recovery of amount} due along with the^{personalproperties} and^{assets of the Defendants.}

¶25

The Originat Apptication is attowed and^{it is orderedas under-}

¶26

i) The Defendants do^{pay jointty and severatlyRs. 1,10,48,215.00} (Rupees One Crore, Ten Lac, Fourty Eight^{Thousand,TwoHundredand} Fifteen onty) together with^{pendentelite and future interest @8'75%p.a'} simpte in cash credit^{accountand interest @8.30%p.a. simptyin WCTL} account from the date^{of fiting of the oA, i.e.,29107172, with costs titl its} reatization.

¶27

¶28

oA936/22

¶29

ii) The Appticant Bank is entitted to se[[ the mortgaged as wett as personal properties and assets of the Defendants for reatization of its dues. The Defendants are hereby restrained by means of injunction from depteting, transferring, encumbering, alienating or in any way deating with their properties/assets without first paying the ctaim of the Appticant Bank.

¶30

iii) A Recovery Certificate be issued u/s 19(22) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The appticant bank may file a memo of cost within 7 days for preparing Recovery Certificate.

¶31

Judgment^pronounced in the open court on this^{22nd Day} of November,2024.

¶32

.\'
( MN 5 Pa
Presidine Officer

State Bank of India v. M/S Jai Shree Krishna Agency

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S Jai Shree Krishna Agency

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

State Bank of India versus Umashankar Patel

Punjab National Bank versus M/s Jyoti Sales

Central Bank of India versus Ramgopal Patel

Hdfc Bank versus Sujjan Singh Parmar

Shri Neeraj Makkar versus Ms Poonawalla Fincorp Ltd.

Ramashray Sahu Son of Shri Shankar Lal Sahu versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited