Allowed

State Bank of India v. v. Business Enterprises LLP

DRT10 Feb 2025OA/171/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT at Hyderabad allowed the Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs.35,78,350/- along with future interest and costs against V. Business Enterprises LLP and individuals. The court held the bank established its claim and ordered joint and several liability.

What did the court decide?

Defendants directed to pay Rs.35,78,350/- with future interest; bank entitled to proceed against hypothecated properties, properties of defendants 2 & 3, and firm assets.

State Bank of India versus v. Business Enterprises LLP — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE lOrH DAy OF FEBRUARY,2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.171 ot 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

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

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

V. Business Enterprises LLP,

¶10

Represented by its Managing partner Sri M. Kranthichand, male, major, Plot no.707, 708 & 709, fortune Monarch Mall, Road no.36, lubilee hills, Hyderabad - 500 033.

¶11

Also at:

¶12

Office at V Cinema, 4th floor, Q^{Hub, road No.36, jubileehills,} Hyderabad - 500 033.

¶13

Sri M. Kranthi Kumar, s/o MaddineniSudhakar, male, major, R/o 8-2-293 / B2l L/ 229 / A/ 202, road no.12, Sita Rama Nilayam, MLA colony, Banjara hills, Hyderabad - 500034.

¶14

Also at:

¶15

ffi
GE

¶16

Office at V Cinema, 4th Q^{Hub, road No.36, jubilee} Hyderabad - 500 033. ff,^{10 FEB 7W} :

¶17

%*-*9

¶18

(oA.No.171l2024)

¶19

? Sri P. Vivekananda^Varma, S/o PenmatsaVenkataPathi^Raju, Male, major, managing Partner^of V. Business Enterprises^LLP, R/o 6-20-15,^{plot no.23,} East^point colonY,^{KDPM High} School, VisakhaPatnam^(Urban) Visakhapatnam,^{L.B. colonY,} Andhra Pradesh -^{530 017.}

¶20

Also at:

¶21

Office at V Cinema,^{4th floor,} Q^{Hub, road No.36, jubilee hills,} Hyderabad - 500 033.

¶22

Defendants

¶23

Counsel for the^Parties:

¶24

For the Applicant

¶25

For the Defendants

¶26

Sri P.V. SatyanaraYana

¶27

Sri. M. Amandeep^Chandra

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The Applicant^{Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for} recovery of a total^{sum of Rs.35,78,350/-(RupeesThirty Five} Lakhs seventy^{Eight ThousandThree hundred and Fifty only)}

¶30

i,e.,

¶31

loan limit with^interest@

¶32

a) A sum of Rs.13,90,805/-^{for CC} date of aPPlication^{till the}

¶33

14.5Oo/o^{p.awith monthly rests from}

¶34

date of realization;

¶35

erm loan limit with^interest@

¶36

b) date of aPPlication^{till the}

¶37

12.1-5o/o P .a date of

¶38

(OA.No.L77/20241

¶39

c) A sum of Rs.7,53,009/- for WCDL loan limit with interest @ t2.l5o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization;

¶40

and in default for sale of hypothecated movables as described in the schedule to OA.

¶41

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 is a firm represented by managing partners/ defendants 2 and 3 availed term loan of Rs.25.00 lakhs, cash credit of Rs.26.00 lakhs o0n 16.10.2018. The defendants executed agreement of loan cum hypothecation and guarantee agreement dated 16.10.2018. Subsequently the aforesaid facilities are renewed i.e, Rs.13.00 lakhs (CC), Rs.13.00 lakhs (WCDL) and Rs.21.00 lakhs (TL) respectively on 22.07.2022. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA on 30.01.2024 and issued legal notice dated 19.02.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶42

Sri M. Amandeep Chandra filed vakalath for defendants No.1 to 3 but
faired to ffi,
//.& - ffi
t!-tS
/;''':;:t
_i 1o FEBzU'

¶43

(oA.No.171l2024)

¶44

Sri S. PrathikYadav, Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW,1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.14.

¶45

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶46

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?

¶47

Counsel for defendants filed vakalath but not filed WS. 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.14. 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 claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶48

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.35,78,350/- (Rupees Thirty

¶49

Five Lakhs Eight Thousand Three hundred and Fifty

¶50

only) i.

¶51

4, fi '. ' -.: ,::t,tr

¶52

(oA.No.17112024)

¶53

a) A sum of Rs.13,90,805/- for CC loan limit with interest @ 74.50o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶54

b) A sum of Rs.14,34,536/- for Term loan limit with interest @ 72.15o/o p.a from date of application till the date of realization;

¶55

c) A sum of Rs.7,53,009/- for WCDL loan limit with interest @ 72.15o/o ps from date of application till the date of realization;

¶56

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated property as described in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶57

10' The Applicant Bank is arso entifled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 and 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

¶61

ingly.

¶62

",^,</sup>

¶63

P.v-. ef^,tlp ordbr the parties concerned. itate 1 ff

¶64

(oA.No.t7Ll2o2al

¶65

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of Feb, 2025)

sd/-

(G. GOPTCHAND)

PRESIDING OFFICER

tr.:tW "J*'#:z';H^r.

State Bank of India v. v. Business Enterprises LLP

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. v. Business Enterprises LLP

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

Smt. Sandya Joshi versus Idbi Bank

Canara Bank versus M/S. Rise Automobiles

S T Bharanikanth versus Indian Overseas Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri. Dayanand Dasram

State Bank of India versus M/S. Js Upvc and Glass Solutions

Ms Chelpuru Brothers Cloth Sotres versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)