Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/S.Gnr Products India

DRT21 Aug 2024TA/4/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of dues amounting to approx Rs. 39.39 lakhs along with interest and costs. The borrowers and guarantors were held jointly and severally liable and a recovery certificate was issued.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs. 39,39,522/- with interest; proceed against mortgaged properties and person/properties of defendants; issue Recovery certificate.

State Bank of India versus M/S.Gnr Products India — DRT (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 21STDAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESTDING OFFICER TA.No.4 of 2022

¶3

Between:

¶4

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, 2nd floor, TSRTC Commuter Amenity Centre, Bus Terminal complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 5OO 095. Represented by its chief Manager

¶5

Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/s. GNR^products India, Represented by its proprietor Sri Garlapati V. Venkatesh, Aged 36 years, male, H.No.9-1-43, Kaman bazar, Khammam town, Khammam district - 207 OO1

¶8

¶9

SriGarlapativenuVenkatesh, s/o Sri Nageswara Rao, aged 36 years, male, H-No.9-1-43, Kaman Bazar, Khammam town, Khammam dist - 207 OO1.

¶10

Sri GarlapatiNageswara Rao, S/o Sri Venkateswarlu, Aged 63 years, male, H.No.9-1-43, Kaman bazar, Khammam town, Khammam District - 207 l}t.

¶11

21 Al]0 2m

¶12

SmtGarlapatiLakshmi, w/o Sri Nageswara Rao, aged 62 years, female,

¶13

(TA.No.4 of 2022 )

¶14

H. No.9-1-43, Kaman Bazar, Khammam town, Khammam dist - 207 001.

¶15

Sri GarlapatiVenkata Krishna Santhosh, S/o Sri Nageswara Rao, aged 37 years, male, H. No.g- 1-43, Kaman Bazar, Khammam town, Khammam dist - 207 001.

¶16

Defendants

¶17

Counsel for the Parties: For the Applicant For the Defendants

¶18

Sri C. Prabhakar

¶19

Sri R. Rajendra Prasad

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.39,3g,522l_ (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Twoonly) i.€.,

¶22

a)A sum of Rs.15,62,157/- under Loan account No.3B93O59SB40 with further interest @ 13.650lo p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶23

b) A sum of Rs.76,35,423/- under Loan account No.62505g92166 with further interest @ 13.65% p.a with monthry rests from date

¶24

of filing of OA till the date of reali

¶25

c) A sum of Rs.7,40,942/- und

¶26

55151307 with further interest @ 13.65 date ,1"^{i'T fu"il'ffi ':} of filing of OA till the date of li,iption; -j i ';.rr. .., 6 -Yl Ss,E9

¶27

(TA.No.4 of 2022)

¶28

and in default for sale of mortgaged properties as described in

¶29

the schedule to OA.

¶30

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendants No.1 is a proprietary concern / principal borrower and defendants 2 to 5 are mortgagors as well as guarantors. The defendants 1 to 5 availed cash credit limit of Rs.50.00 lakhs for running business of defendant no.1 through retter of arrangement dated 17.O3.20L7. To secure due repayment of cash credit (Hypothecation) limit, the defendant no.1 executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation dated 17.03.20L7. The applicant bank renewed/ reduced the cash credit rimit to Rs.15.00 rakhs and sanctioned term loan of Rs.35.00 lakhs vide letter of arrangement dated 14.11.2019, To secure due repayment of loan the defendant no.1 executed supprementar agreement of roan cum hypothecation dated 30,06.2020. Defendants 2 to 5 jointly executed guarantee agreement dated 30.06.2020 and created equitable mortgage on 06.10.2016 by way of deposit of sale deed no.10335/20t6 in respect of schedule I property and sare deed no.10336/2016 in respect of schedule property - II. Defendants No.2 to 5 extended the mortgage to cover loa n facilities sa ndant no.1 and confirmed the same by way of firmation for extension '.dt.zozo. of mortgage dated It is submi that the Defendants 4, have availed the^{i or2tn" ttiErtsL,} iled to keep up the

¶31

(TA.No.4 of 2022)

¶32

repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA and issued legal notice dated L2.09.2022. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The totar craim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.Rs.3g,3g,SZ2/_ (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Thirty Eight rhousand Five Hundred and Twenty Two only) with future interest @ 13.650lo p.a with monthly rests from date of apprication ti[ the date of rearization. Hence the OA,

¶33

2' The Defendants No.1 to 5 fired written statement and denied the averments made in OA. It is submitted that due to covid 19 pandemic, ail business a[ over the country faced hardships and the business was running row and during that troubres the Appricant bank decrared the account as NpA. It is arso contended that inspite of suffering rosses, the defendants paid the roan instaIments regurarry. It is further submitted that the mistake in giving the correspondence address of M/s' GNR products India as the risk address arso is that of the Applicant bank and that the Appricant took signatures on brank documents and further contended that Applicant bank regularly audited the stock at god the fire accident took place. Hence prayed for di

¶34

(TA.No.4 of 2022)

¶35

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Sri A.G. Satya Prasad, Manager as AW.l and through him marked 19 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.19. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf in support of their contentions and also did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert his Chief Evidence. Inspite of repeated adjournments, the defendants failed to file evidence Affidavit, hence the right of filing Defendant Evidence Affidavit was closed on 25.01.2024.

¶36

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶37

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶38

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶39

ii) To what relief ?

¶40

Point No.i):

¶41

As per the documents fired by the Appricant Bank and arso as per the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement, it is very clear that the defendants have availed loan from the Applicant Bank, but failed to All the amounts paid by the "a\

¶42

defendants are cl m enti ement of account filed by Applicant Bank. jn" ?+nmnP4^nu* not placed any material J-.,. + . ..r : i],, '.' , ' ;*-,1! \ 'rr''5 ... . -7'

¶43

(TA.No.4 of 2022)

¶44

documents to show their bonafides for estabrishing that they paid substantial amounts to the Applicant.

¶45

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their riabirity is ress than the amount mentioned in the OA and no supporting documents filed for establishing that they have not created the mortgage. Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupred with recitars Ex.A.1 to A. 1g stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendant is liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶46

Point No.ii)

¶47

In the result, the present original application is allowed with costs as under:

¶48

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.39,3g,522l_ (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Two only)

¶49

l.€.,

¶50

a) A sum of Rs.15,62,157/_ under Loan account No.38930598840 with further in from date of filing of OA till the date of :^{21 mlc}

¶51

(TA.No.4 of 2022)

¶52

b) A sum of Rs.16,35,423/- under Loan account No.62505892166 with further interest @ 13.650lo p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶53

c) A sum of Rs.7,40,942/- under Loan account No.39455151307 with further interest @ 13.650lo p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization;

¶54

B. The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged properties as described in schedure to oA towards rearization of the debt due.

¶55

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person

¶56

and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶57

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

¶58

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

¶59

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶60

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶61

by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open
' 2024)
sdl-
IRUE CO?),,**(G. GoptcHAN D)
n . I LJ' ;l'1 PRESIDING oFFrcER
P / ;sif.'8,6j/( )
PPr;rt"l, ti';'r,':

State Bank of India v. M/S.Gnr Products India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/S.Gnr Products India

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suman Kumar Kotra versus Sriram City Union Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sri Makkena John Jabraj

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Harihara Pack Private Ltd.

O. Pruthvik Rao versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Sri Kunarapu Raju

Punjab National Bank versus Smt Banoth Sarojini